Times are changing in the world of law school admissions, with at least 23 institutions, including Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, and Georgetown now accepting GRE scores instead of, or alongside, the long-favored LSAT. What’s more, 25 percent of law schools are currently working on retooling their processes to accept the GRE.

Why the shift? According to administrators, GRE scores are predictive of a student’s success as a 1L and open the legal profession to students with a wider set of skills and backgrounds. The GRE is also offered in a computer format, almost every day of the year, in more than 1,000 places, while the LSAT is not nearly as accessible – it’s offered on paper only and can only be taken four times a year.

However, it’s unlikely the LSAT will become obsolete any time soon. The American Bar Association (ABA) still requires that 90 percent of an entering class at an ABA accredited-law school have an LSAT score.  The Princeton Review keeps a running tally of law schools accepting the GRE.

Morgan Wright

Morgan Wright is a product manager at Fastcase and publisher of RAIL: The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law. She earned her undergraduate degree from Hood College and her law degree from the University of Richmond School of Law. She has worked at the Institute for Actual Innocence and the Office of the Capital Defender in Virginia, as well as in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

The post Growing Number of Law Schools Accept GRE Instead of LSAT appeared first on Law Street.

For marijuana businesses, it can be extremely challenging to utilize social media to its fullest marketing potential. Historically, social media companies have erred on the side of caution when establishing their community guidelines, siding with the feds’ prohibition of marijuana. However, a recent statement from Instagram could indicate a change in that company’s stance on marijuana advertising.

The critical language was noticed by Ganjapreneur after a recent Leafly report on the ongoing Instagram impersonation of Kiva Confections, a popular California-based edibles company.

As Leafly reported, a fake account using Kiva’s name suddenly began abusing people in comments and direct messages. Kiva contacted Instagram and successfully had the internet trolls’ account shut down. However, it was through this exchange that Instagram revealed some potentially critical changes to its existing policy on cannabis as it relates to advertising.

The statement reads in full:

Instagram does not allow people or organizations to use the platform to advertise or sell marijuana, regardless of the seller’s state or country. This is primarily because most federal laws, including those of the United States, treat marijuana as either an illegal substance or highly regulated good. Our policy prohibits any marijuana seller, including dispensaries, from promoting their business by providing contact information like phone numbers, street addresses, or by using the “contact us” tab in Instagram Business Accounts. We do however allow marijuana advocacy content as long as it is not promoting the sale of the drug. Dispensaries can promote the use and federal legalization of marijuana provided that they do not also promote its sale or provide contact information to their store.

As Ganjapreneur points out, the emphasized portion above leaves out any mention of “websites.” Therefore, “without listing your location’s contact info, you can drive customers to your website where your contact info, daily deals, and updated menus are all prominently displayed.” In other words, as long as companies don’t advertise or promote the sale of cannabis, they should be in the clear.

Instagram’s omission signals a progressive push for the social media platform, which was bought by Facebook in 2012. Facebook’s community standards specifically prohibit content that promotes marijuana sales–even in states where it’s legal–but Instagram has a history of not enforcing its vague policies uniformly.

“What’s so interesting is that you’ll see posts from other companies or users and it’s naked women and paraphernalia and guns and cash,” Kristi Knoblich, co-founder of Kiva, said. “But all the posts we had on our real page were about education. Things like how to keep edibles away from kids, how to store and lock your edibles, pointers and tips for how to use safely. The nature of what we were posting didn’t have anything to do with promoting sales, illegal use, shipping or distribution.”

Hopefully, Instagram’s updated guidelines will ensure more breathing room for legal companies looking to grow their businesses with innocuous marijuana posts.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Instagram Change its Marijuana Marketing Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

Do you think you have a good handle on this week’s top news stories? Are you a regular RantCrush reader? Well, it’s time to test yourself and figure it out with our weekly news quiz! Check out the quiz below, and if you’re not already signed up to receive RantCrush each work day, click here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Ultimate News Quiz appeared first on Law Street.

The parliament in Germany passed a controversial bill last Friday that would give social media companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter 24 hours to remove explicitly hateful speech and “obviously illegal” content before facing a fine of up to 50 million euros ($57 million).

Holocaust denial, dissemination of Nazi symbols, racist agitation, and antisemitic language are considered illegal under Germany’s criminal code and would qualify for prompt removal under the Network Enforcement Act, or “Facebook law,” as some are calling it.

The law, which will take effect in October after Germany’s elections, is the toughest of its kind. It also states that social media companies will have seven days to remove other, less offensive posts, and will have to submit a public report on the complaints they have received every six months and explain how they dealt with each instance.

German Justice Minister Heiko Maas has said he wants to treat Facebook as a media company, thereby making it legally liable for hate speech on its platform.

“Freedom of opinion ends where criminal law begins,” Maas said, adding that hate crimes in Germany have increased by 300 percent in the last two years.

“These [posts] are not examples of freedom of speech. They’re attacks on freedom of speech. The worst danger to freedom of speech is a situation where threats go unpunished,” Maas said while addressing the need for the legislation.

Germany already has some of the world’s strictest regulations regarding libel, defamation, and hate speech. However, in light of recent attacks and instances of homegrown terrorism across the continent, German and European lawmakers are facing pressure to further limit radicalization and offensive speech online.

In 2015, the European Commission created a voluntary code of conduct that called for web companies to remove videos that incite terrorism or hatred.

After the attacks in London, both British Prime Minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron said they are considering laws similar to Germany’s to fine companies that “fail to take action” against terrorist propaganda and violent content.

Facebook said in a statement, “This law as it stands now will not improve efforts to tackle this important societal problem.” And in another statement from May, the company said that the measure “provides an incentive to delete content that is not clearly illegal when social networks face such a disproportionate threat of fines. It would have the effect of transferring responsibility for complex legal decisions from public authorities to private companies.”

Because of its war-torn past, Europe has been more willing to place restrictions on freedom of speech in favor of limiting propaganda and hate speech than the United States. However, critics and human rights groups say this law may be going too far.

“Many of the violations covered by the bill are highly dependent on context, context which platforms are in no position to assess,” said David Kaye, the U.N. Special Rapporteur to the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “The obligations placed upon private companies to regulate and take down content raises concern with respect to freedom of expression.”

Joe McNamee, the executive director of the digital rights group EDRi, said that the law could establish a precedent for “wholesale privatization of freedom of expression,” with “large internet companies deciding what they want the public discourse to be.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Germany Passes Law to Fine Social Media Companies that Fail to Remove Hate Speech appeared first on Law Street.

After over a year of President Donald Trump accusing the mainstream media of disseminating “fake news,” Trump has been caught with a fake Time magazine cover hanging in many of his properties. After learning of the situation, a Time spokeswoman said that the magazine had asked the Trump Organization to remove the fictional covers but it had not yet received a response.

This counterfeit cover was hung in at least eight of Trump’s 17 golf courses, including Mar-A-Lago, which Trump has visited regularly since taking office. Additionally, the cover was hanging at Trump golf resorts in Ireland and Scotland until they were removed in the past few months, according to the Washington Post.

The fake cover, which is supposedly from March 1, 2009, praises Trump as a “television smash” and that he is “hitting on all fronts…even T.V!” But Time magazine argues that this is not a real cover. Instead, the real edition, which was released on March 2, 2009, features actress Kate Winslet on the cover with the headline “Best Actress.”

There were a handful of issues with the presentation that tipped off observers to the fact that the cover was, in fact, fake news. First, the border was too skinny and was missing a white divider. Next, secondary headlines were stacked on the right side as opposed to the top where Time traditionally places them. Some of the stories did indeed appear in that week’s edition, but others weren’t published until the following month, according to Newsweek.

Another crucial mistake was the use of two exclamation points, which Time almost never uses on the cover.

The kicker is that the bar code is fake and pulled directly from this tutorial on how to make a fake Time cover. The instructions were laid out by a Peruvian graphic designer.

This situation prompted Virginia congressman Gerry Connolly to mock Trump on Twitter.

Wow, my first cover of Time. Asked my staff to frame this and hang it in all four of my offices. @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/Hx57ZJExR8 pic.twitter.com/y1HciTB5G1

— Gerry Connolly (@GerryConnolly) June 27, 2017

While it is still unknown who exactly put together the fake cover, or whether Trump himself knew about it, it’s clear that Trump views Time covers as a sign of success. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump bragged about being on the cover “six for politics and…two for real estate.” According to Time magazine history, Trump has indeed appeared on the cover plenty of times in the past year, albeit not always positively. But he only appeared once for his real estate ventures and that was in January 1989.

Even when giving a speech at the CIA headquarters in January, Trump boasted that he owned the “all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” In actuality Trump has appeared on the cover 11 times up to this point while Richard Nixon, the 37th president, appeared on 55 covers before his death in 1994.

Despite having appeared on the cover of the prestigious magazine plenty of times, Trump has clearly been hyperbolic when describing his number of appearances. It is unclear whether Trump knew of the fake covers or why it was created when there were legitimate alternatives, according to the Washington Post.

While there are websites that aid the public in creating fake magazine covers, it seems unethical for the President of the United States to be promoting himself with falsified news covers. And this entire debacle seems even more troublesome in the context of Trump’s repeated attacks on the news media. 

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Time Magazine Asks Trump Organization to Remove “Fake News” Cover appeared first on Law Street.

Megyn Kelly’s exclusive interview with Infowars.com head Alex Jones aired on Sunday night on NBC News, but ultimately faced more criticism than praise.

The much-anticipated interview drew 3.5 million viewers, according to Nielsen ratings, putting it even with a rerun of “America’s Funniest Home Videos” and two million viewers behind a rerun of “60 Minutes.” Kelly’s two previous shows earned 0.7 and 4.9 million viewers respectively.

Kelly and NBC faced plenty of criticism prior to the airing from those upset with the national platform given to Alex Jones, a famous right-wing personality who is often accused of spreading false facts and conspiracy theories. He is perhaps most infamous for claiming that the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a hoax.

Critics accused Kelly of promoting Jones, a man who many blame for spreading fake news and riling up his angry, right-wing supporters. These complaints were only fueled by the fact that the interview aired on Fathers Day. Many pled with NBC to not air the segment, but only NBC affiliates in Connecticut, where the Sandy Hook shooting occurred, elected not to show the interview.

Kelly, a former Fox News host, has long been under public scrutiny and her transition to NBC has made her more mainstream. Many at NBC put their faith in Kelly, believing she was destined to be a “super star” but one anonymous television executive believes her ceiling is as a “cable star,” according to CNN. So, many were upset that she was using her new platform to normalize Jones and his radical, oftentimes racist, theories.

Plenty of advertisers withdrew their sponsorship in response to the interview, including JPMorgan Chase, according to The Hill. On a local scale, several ads were pulled from the air, according to CNN. JPMorgan Chase CMO Kristin Lemkau “requested that its local and digital ads not be placed adjacent to any broadcast or stream of the segment,” according to Jezebel.

As an advertiser, I’m repulsed that @megynkelly would give a second of airtime to someone who says Sandy Hook and Aurora are hoaxes. Why? https://t.co/luwyCwP7Ti

— Kristin Lemkau (@KLemkau) June 12, 2017

In order to make up for this issue, NBC ran several public service announcements, normally reserved for less desirable time slots, according to Variety. Additionally, there were an unusual number of NBC promotions and repeated advertisements during the broadcast, indicative of the network’s scramble to fill ad breaks.

Those upset with the interview were emboldened when Jones released audio of Kelly promising him that the interview wouldn’t be a “gotcha hit piece” and that it would leave “the left” impressed. But it’s traditionally against journalistic ethics to promise interview subjects that you will make them look as good as possible.

In the end, Kelly’s interview with Jones may have caused more trouble for NBC than it was worth. Now it will matter if these ramifications will have a long term effect. Will big advertisers, like JPMorgan Chase, return to NBC and Kelly’s show specifically? As for Kelly’s ratings, they peaked with her pilot episode and haven’t come close to those levels since.

NBC expected big things out of Kelly when she moved from Fox, but after a tumultuous first month she may be in more trouble than expected. Nowhere to go but up…right?

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Megyn Kelly’s Interview with Alex Jones Sparks Negative Reactions appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s Twitter account has controversially given his almost 32 million followers direct, unfiltered access to his thoughts and stances on issues. Now that users are getting blocked from the account for offending the president, a group of lawyers say his actions infringe on their freedom of speech.

On Tuesday, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University wrote a letter asking Trump to remove the blocks, adding that they constitute a violation of the First Amendment.

This request brings up some novel legal questions: Is access to a president’s tweets and the information they contain comparable to a public town hall, despite the fact that they are being posted on a private account? If so, can the president violate the Constitution if he prevents a user’s access? The lawyers’ letter states:

When the government makes a space available to the public at large for the purpose of expressive activity, it creates a public forum form which it may not constitutionally exclude individuals on the basis of viewpoint. This is true even if the space in question is ‘metaphysical’ rather than physical; even if the space is privately rather than publicly owned; and ‘even when the limited public forum is one of [the government’s] own creation.’

On the same day the letter was written, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in a briefing that Trump’s tweets ought to be taken seriously, thereby strengthening the lawyers’ argument. He “is the president of the United States, so they’re considered official statements by the president of the United States.”

Users have been blocked for tweets as simple as covfefe-related jokes, and policy criticism. Holly Figueroa O’Reilly was blocked from the @realDonaldTrump account after she made a joke about how the pope frowned at the president during his trip to the Vatican. She agrees that her blocking may constitute an offense to her First Amendment rights.

“This is an elected official trying to silence an entire sector of the dissenting populace,” O’Reilly said in opinion article. “This is what dictators and fascists do. This isn’t what we do here in America.

@realdonaldtrump isn't a regular citizen. He's @potus His tweets are public record. Unblock us this is unconstitutional #BlockedByTrump pic.twitter.com/a9Kw4KNTlv

— Andy Signore (@andysignore) June 7, 2017

Some, however, do not think cases like these would hold up in court. Ken White, a First Amendment litigator and blogger, told Vox that a blocked user is only being prevented from being able to “read what the president has chosen to vent on this particular site,” and not to speak about matters.

Other issues include the fact that the president has two accounts, including his @POTUS handle, and the fact that ultimately they are both hosted through a private company’s servers further muddle the legal picture.

While the debate over Trump’s Twitter blocks continues, some of his former followers have started a #BlockedByTrump hashtag, choosing to view the president’s move as a badge of honor.

Tonight I am honored to join an elite club … #BlockedByTrump. Apparently, I hurt the feelings of the "leader of the free world". SAD! pic.twitter.com/yQGyt2yBJE

— Rob Szczerba (@RJSzczerba) June 2, 2017

Is #BlockedByTrump just a hashtag or the Holy Grail of Twitter?

— Christoph Rehage (@crehage) May 30, 2017

If Trump doesn’t reverse the blocks or answer the letter, the Knight Institute says his administration should prepare for “legal action to protect the First Amendment rights of blocked individuals.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When Trump Blocks Twitter Followers, Does he Violate the Constitution? appeared first on Law Street.

Instagram is the worst app for your mental health, according to a new study released by the U.K.’s Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH).

Researchers surveyed nearly 1,500 14 to 24 year olds and found that heavy usage of the photo sharing app led to poor body image and sleep, as well as higher levels of anxiety and depression.

.@YouTube only net positive platform for mental health whilst @Twitter – @facebook – @Snapchat & @instagram all net negative #StatusOfMind pic.twitter.com/E95Ob2D1vp

— RSPH (@R_S_P_H) May 19, 2017

Although “FOMO”–aka the “fear of missing out”–may not be a real a mental condition, it has been shown to take a serious toll on young people; the survey found that users who spent more than two hours on social media were more likely to report poor mental health, increased levels of psychological distress, and suicidal ideation.

The #StatusOfMind report explains:

This phenomenon has even been labelled as ‘Facebook depression’ by researchers who suggest that the intensity of the online world – where teens and young adults are constantly contactable, face pressures from unrealistic representations of reality, and deal with online peer pressure – may be responsible for triggering depression or exacerbating existing conditions.

“Instagram easily makes girls and women feel as if their bodies aren’t good enough as people add filters and edit their pictures in order for them to look ‘perfect’,” one survey responder explained about the app.

Snapchat, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were found to be similarly damaging to mental health, counteracting positive effects like self-expression, self-identity, and community building.

Here is the @instagram profile that led to it being ranked worst for young people’s mental health and wellbeing in our report #StatusOfMind pic.twitter.com/9SbfoQwMY1

— RSPH (@R_S_P_H) May 19, 2017

Even with all of the negative side effects, quitting social media altogether can be can be extremely hard for users, according to Shirley Cramer, chief executive of RSPH.

RSPH and the Young Health Movement are now calling on social media companies to:

• Introduce a pop-up heavy usage warning on social media
• Identify users who could be suffering from mental health problems by their posts, and discretely signpost to support
• Highlight when photos of people have been digitally manipulated

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Instagram Wrecking Your Self Esteem? appeared first on Law Street.

The Federal Trade Commission means business when it comes to regulating Instagram advertisements.

The consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen recently complained celebrities weren’t being upfront about which of their posts were sponsored. So, the FTC responded by reviewing the photos and sending warning letters to more than 90 Instagram users. The commission has discussed its standards for advertising on social media before, but has not directly confronted the celebrities named in complaints until now.

Public Citizen wasn’t alone in its push to make sponsored content more transparent—this past summer, the nonprofit Truth in Advertising filed a complaint against the Kardashian family for “deceptive marketing.” Though the FTC won’t name which celebrities received the letters, Public Citizen also included the Kardashians in its petition, in addition to well-known Instagrammers like Rihanna, Michael Phelps, Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lopez, Lindsay Lohan, Lebron James, Drake, Mark Wahlberg, and Blake Lively.

The 113 photos Public Citizen referenced in its complaint usually show the celebrities using a product from the brand that has paid them, with an accompanying caption endorsing it. Products range from makeup and hair care from companies like L’Oreal to athletic gear from Nike and Adidas to snacks from Lay’s and Dunkin’ Donuts.

According to a release on the FTC’s website:

The FTC’s Endorsement Guides provide that if there is a ‘material connection’ between an endorser and an advertiser – in other words, a connection that might affect the weight or credibility that consumers give the endorsement – that connection should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed, unless it is already clear from the context of the communication. A material connection could be a business or family relationship, monetary payment, or the gift of a free product. Importantly, the Endorsement Guides apply to both marketers and endorsers.

The release adds that Instagrammers should be clear that their post is an ad within the first three lines of the photo caption, and should avoid writing too many hashtags that could bury disclaimers. The use of hashtags and captions like “#sp” (short for “sponsored”), “Thanks [Brand],” or “partner” do not directly communicate that the post is sponsored and can confuse followers, the FTC says.

In its Endorsement Guides, the FTC writes that ads should be “honest and not misleading”—and consumers should know when they’re reading an endorsement that has been paid-for, because it can affect the way they “[evaluate] the endorser’s glowing recommendation.”

This doesn’t mean your favorite actors, athletes and reality stars are headed to court or getting banned from Instagram anytime soon. Often, it’s the sponsor behind the post that ends up taking the heat for its sneaky ad campaigns. In July, Warner Bros. settled charges that it failed to disclose information about paying “influencers,” like Youtube star PewDiePie, to recommend one of its video games. In March, the department store Lord & Taylor settled charges over its failure to inform consumers that it had sent popular Instagram users free clothing in exchange for promotion of one of its clothing lines.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The FTC Isn’t Kidding About Instagram Ads appeared first on Law Street.

American and German hate speech laws are clashing this month after the approval of a German bill that permits fines of up to 50 million euros on social networking sites that fail to remove hate speech and fake news content from their platforms. The bill still needs to be approved by parliament, but if it does pass, it will be the first concrete step by a government to limit and penalize fake news production.

Companies will have 24 hours to take down content that has been flagged by users before the fines kick in. They will also be obligated to file quarterly reports and turn in “malicious” users–an issue that may prove thorny, as demonstrated by Twitter’s recent lawsuit against the federal government.

American-based sites including Facebook and Twitter have been scrambling to fight fake news over the past year but have struggled to walk the line between freedom of speech and hate speech. In Germany, where the legacy of the Nazi reign has created some of the strictest hate speech laws on the books, that line has been far more defined for decades. Under German law, volksverhetzung, which can be translated as “incitement to hatred,” is a crime punishable by heavy fines or several years of imprisonment. These punishments are usually applied to Holocaust denial and overt racist threats but by shifting the focus to social media, Germany is taking on a wider and more varied range of bigoted behavior. German justice minister Heiko Maas told the German media that “there should be just as little tolerance for criminal rabble rousing on social networks as on the street.”

The bill has already come under fire from advocates of free speech, including the EU’s digital commissioner, Andrus Ansip of Estonia. Ansip declared that over-regulating social media will harm innovation and that instead, the EU should encourage self-regulation. However, German supporters of the bill argue that websites have been neglecting reports of abuse coming in from users and that a harsher penalty is the only way to ensure that the sites will truly take fake news and hate speech seriously. The German Jugendschutz, a ministry dedicated to protecting minors online, found that Facebook only removed 39 percent of reported criminal content. Twitter removes an even smaller percentage of reported content–an estimated one in a hundred reported messages. Facebook has refuted the Jugendschutz statistic, arguing that its own analysis showed a higher rate of removal, but Twitter has not pushed back with the same vehement denial.

Tracing and deleting fake news and hate speech is a challenging task, especially for networks like Facebook and Twitter that serve hundreds of millions of users across dozens of countries every day. There is so much content to sift through that it is not surprising the social network teams are struggling to rapidly and accurately take down fake news. However, a worthwhile task shouldn’t be abandoned simply because it is difficult. The true challenge is not taking down abusive content, it is determining whether the strict German definition of hate speech can be applied in an era where even the team in the Oval Office has made disparaging and racist remarks on social media.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What Germany’s New Hate Speech Law Means for Social Media appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like 2017 is the year of the “woke” commercial. This past Super Bowl, audiences were served these types of seemingly socially conscious ads from giants like Audi, Budweiser, and Airbnb. Last night, Pepsi decided to get in on the trend and released a two-and-a-half minute ad starring Kendall Jenner that basically everyone on Twitter found to be as tone-deaf as it was offensive. The ad, which is part of a global campaign that focuses on “the moments when we decide to let go, choose to act, follow our passion and nothing holds us back,” pretty overtly evokes imagery borrowed from what we’ve seen at Black Lives Matter protests.

The commentary on Twitter was a perfect combination of reflection on how Pepsi allowed for this ridiculous ad to be made in the first place, and the brutal roasting that Pepsi deserves.

Star Wars would have never happened if Princess Leia just handed me a can of Pepsi at the beginning of the movie

— Darth Vader (@DepressedDarth) April 5, 2017

“Now just wait one second officers.

I have a Pepsi.” pic.twitter.com/NW0sddKOOI

— Philip Lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) April 5, 2017

“I have a dream that one day God’s brown, black, and white children will enjoy backwash from the same can of Pepsi.” pic.twitter.com/DEFwxXxIP0

— April 4, 1968 (@BroderickGreer) April 5, 2017

.@pepsi could have spared itself a lot of trouble by going back to its original slogan “We Only Have Pepsi, Is That Okay?” #PepsiMoment

— Matt Helgeson (@MattHelgeson) April 5, 2017

In Baltimore they handed out water…nothing changed. @Pepsi pic.twitter.com/X73fcxPIMF

— DC Maryland Virginia (@DMVFollowers) April 5, 2017

“This is officer Haynes; just saw a group of black boys. You guys up for a Pepsi? I think I can force about 4 cans from them” pic.twitter.com/YATDgxLq5C

— #Wejoice (@Rejiaku) April 5, 2017

“STOP GUYS! I have a Pepsi multi pack in my car!!” pic.twitter.com/0BamCseHUo

— Ojuelepogba (@Chenyboi) April 5, 2017

when you were going to violently break up a peaceful protest but the Pepsi way too good pic.twitter.com/wTPCwpyk2v

— Hanif Abdurraqib (@NifMuhammad) April 5, 2017

Pepsi ain’t been right since they lit Michael Jackson’s Jheri curl on fire.

— Jemele Hill (@jemelehill) April 5, 2017

me: I’ll have a coke
waitress : is Pepsi ok?
me: oh I’m actually already not racist but thank you

— Sophia Benoit (@1followernodad) April 4, 2017

theory: that Kendall Jenner Pepsi ad is actually a Coke ad

— Chris Gayomali (@chrisgayomali) April 4, 2017

.@CocaCola watching this @Pepsi ad go up in flames pic.twitter.com/s4DW2GqpXq

— Ryan Brooks (@ByRyanBrooks) April 4, 2017

“They ain’t have no more damn Pepsi at the store!” pic.twitter.com/lVb8hA7Feo

— malibu nova (@theBrittdoll) April 5, 2017

MLK’s daughter even got in on the trend:

If only Daddy would have known about the power of #Pepsi. pic.twitter.com/FA6JPrY72V

— Be A King (@BerniceKing) April 5, 2017

And, finally, this thread pointed out the ultimate issues with the commercial–click on the tweets to see the whole thing:

iesha l evans peacefully stands in front of troopers n baton rouge during a protest for philando castile & alton sterling. she was arrested. pic.twitter.com/1UgduU14kz

— lay-ken. ☥ (@lakinimani) April 5, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post New Tone-Deaf Pepsi Ad Receives Brutal Backlash on Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

In a move that had many people drawing parallels to George Orwell’s classic novel “1984,” the Trump administration issued communications bans on several government agencies this week.

On Monday morning, the U.S. Department of Agriculture sent out an email to the employees of its research branch–the Agricultural Research Service, which includes about 2,000 scientists–instructing everyone to stop most public communication. This move, which was eventually reversed, echoed similar other orders that were issued to several government agencies.

Buzzfeed obtained a copy of the email to the Agricultural Research Service, which said:

Starting immediately and until further notice, ARS will not release any public-facing documents. This includes, but is not limited to, news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content.

Members of the scientific community criticized the announcement, citing suppression of science. After only a day of public outcry, another email was sent to the staff at ARS on Tuesday evening. This email came from ARS administrator Chavonda Jacobs-Young and reversed the initial order, saying the previous notice should not have been sent in the first place. Officials later told the media that the order to the ARS had not been coordinated with the rest of the department and that it would contradict current guidelines that encourage scientists to share their finding with the media.

Scientists at the USDA were also told that they could keep publishing scientific papers in academic magazines, but could not do any interviews with the media without getting approval from the communications office first. Communications restrictions were also sent to the EPA, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, and the National Park Service. The EPA order also included instructions to freeze all grants and to not discuss it with any outsiders, the Huffington Post reported. The EPA issues grants for environmental research, air quality monitoring, education, and more.

USDA gag order rescinded after public outcry.https://t.co/L1x2EXsM9A
SO KEEP OUTCRYING – it works

— Kelly Hills (@rocza) January 25, 2017

Gretchen Goldman, research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, voiced anxiety about what this may mean for the agency’s future. “To our knowledge, there is not a precedent for large-scale communication freezes like this,” she said to Buzzfeed.

Last week after the inauguration, the official National Park Service Twitter account retweeted a picture comparing the crowds at the event to those attending Obama’s inauguration in 2009. Immediately after, it was ordered by its Washington office to stop all tweeting until further notice. The account was allowed to resume again, after deleting the original tweets and posting an apology.

We regret the mistaken RTs from our account yesterday and look forward to continuing to share the beauty and history of our parks with you pic.twitter.com/mctNNvlrmv

— NationalParkService (@NatlParkService) January 21, 2017

Then on Tuesday, the Badlands National Park sent out a series of tweets with climate change facts but were quickly deleted.

These are tweets that the new Admin has already deleted. RT if you believe in science and oppose Trump’s gag order on climate facts! pic.twitter.com/yBUgyfACN6

— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) January 25, 2017

And now, an alternative, unofficial National parks account claiming to be run by NPS employees has surfaced. The account, with the username @AltUSNatParkService, quickly gained popularity, with nearly 650,000 thousand followers on Wednesday afternoon. Several very similar accounts popped up as well.

What do we want?
Peer-reviewed Science
When do we want it?
Yesterday, please!

— AltUSNatParkService (@AltNatParkSer) January 25, 2017

White House spokesman Sean Spicer told the Hill that he couldn’t comment on the specific bans, but did say that it was normal procedure for a new administration. “I don’t think it’s anything surprise that when there’s an administration turnover, that we’re going to review the policy,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Orders Several Agencies to Restrict Public Communications appeared first on Law Street.

In our present information environment, there is news coming from every direction, at every angle, all the time. Due to this overabundance of information, it is often hard to tell reality from fiction. This can be especially difficult when opinions and fake news have also been interjected into the media landscape. Fake news is far from a periphery player too, in fact, it is splashed across some of the most popular websites on the internet like Facebook and Google. It may even have played a role in the outcome of the presidential election. Read on to learn more about the fake news phenomenon, its place in history, how popular websites made it mainstream, and the consequences of its rise.

The origin of “Fake News”

So what is fake news exactly? As its name suggests, fake news is literally made-up news about events that did not happen. In many cases, the creation of fake news is done by people from all over the world seeking to spread misinformation or looking to promote something and get rich doing it. One of the most egregious examples comes from a few writers in Macedonia who claim they made between $5,000 and $10,000 a month publishing fake stories. These people create extremely partisan pieces for the sole purpose of drawing the most eyeballs. The goal is to get readers interested because more traffic means more ad revenue.

But intentionally fabricating false stories isn’t the only way fake news spreads. It can also be the result of a person’s earnest, yet inaccurate beliefs such as this one example chronicled by the New York Times. Eric Tucker, a Trump supporter, posted a picture on November 9 of what he believed were charter buses bringing in paid protesters to dispute the election. While that was just how he interpreted what he saw, and something he later determined was not true, that did not stop his tweet from going viral. Tucker was a private citizen with a small Twitter following, yet his post was seized upon by several Trump supporters and conservative websites to justify their belief in a conspiracy. The way individuals interpret an event, often without full information about what actually happened, has become increasingly important.

Facebook and Google

Two of the companies that end up promoting (and profiting) from fake news the most are Facebook and Google. So how are these two tech titans attacking this problem? Before this question can be answered it is important to look at why these websites allow fake news in the first place. The issue of fake news on Facebook came to the forefront after a major incident earlier this year. In May, a member of a team that curated the “trending news” section for Facebook said that the group regularly avoided featuring conservative stories. This admission created a political firestorm that led to the end of the trending news team within Facebook and news curation on the site altogether.

In its place, Facebook installed an algorithm that would determine which news stories are being shared the most. However, shortly after its debut, the new section began elevating stories that were completely false. While the company still has some human oversight of the new trending section, they are told to exercise less editorial control over the articles that are featured, leading many fake stories to slip through.

While fake news on Facebook may not seem like a major issue on its face, a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 44 percent of Americans get news on Facebook. In another, more recent poll, Pew found that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe fake news created confusion about basic facts. Facebook and other social media sites provide a way for articles to quickly go viral and reach a remarkably large audience. While most agree that the spread of fake news is a problem, finding an appropriate solution is not particularly easy. Facebook has been cautious in its response out of fear of censoring legitimate news outlets or once again projecting an anti-conservative bias.

How Companies Have Responded

The nature of Facebook’s business makes fake news a difficult issue to approach. At its core, Facebook relies on its large user base to sell advertising to. If the site eliminated fake news it could run the risk of seeming biased or alienating people and losing their engagement and possibly lucrative advertising revenue.

Despite this challenge, Facebook has said that it plans to address fake news. The CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has stated that Facebook is already working on blocking or flagging completely false articles and recently announced a partnership with third-party fact checker sites to help accomplish that goal. Ultimately, Facebook and other companies must walk a tight line. The most blatantly false news stories may be somewhat easy to identify, but in an era of polarized politics even some facts are contested, making it hard to create a clear rule.

For Google, the approach is slightly different because its search engine is predicated on reliability–if it is just showing fake news articles it would lose the trust of its users. However, that is not to say Google has avoided fake news altogether. The most significant example of fake news on Google is a result of the way the search engine ranks results. While search results often feature articles from the company’s curated Google News section, the “Top Stories” at the top of many search results include a broader range of articles that in some cases include fake news. It is particularly confusing because when you click to “read more” articles, it takes you to the Google News section, which is editorially vetted. This stems from the fact that Google Search and Google News are viewed as separate entities by Google. This distinction really becomes problematic because Google News does not accept ad revenue whereas Google Search does. A similar issue exists on Google’s mobile platform, which features AMP stories–web pages that are optimized to load almost instantly on mobile devices–at the top of the results page. This is yet another way for fake news to sneak into the top of the results page.

Google uses an algorithm to weed out spam and fake news websites, although it is not 100 percent foolproof. In light of the recent debate, Google has promised to fight fake news by restricting fake news sites’ access to its AdSense platform, which is often their source of revenue–fake news sites make money by generating a lot of traffic and serving viewers ads, often using Google’s advertising tools. Facebook also made a similar move to prevent fake news sites from using its advertising network.

The following video looks at fake news online and what companies are doing to stop it:

The Impact of Fake News

As many realize the extent to which fake news has spread online, some wonder whether it could have impacted the outcome of the recent election, as news reports indicate that fake news tends to have a conservative bias. Although it is impossible to show the exact impact of fake news on the election–and although Mark Zuckerberg dismissed the notion that fake news was consequential in the election–widespread false information is almost certain to have some sort of impact on people. In fact, according to an article from Buzzfeed News, there was actually more engagement with the top fake election news articles on Facebook than with the top content from traditional media sources in the last three months of the campaign. But, like many factors used to explain the election results, it’s impossible to say whether or not fake news actually tipped the election one way or another.

The video below features a PBS NewsHour discussion of fake news and its potential impact.

The effect of fake news has also been felt outside of the United States. An example would be in the Philippines, where a spokesperson for the president posted graphic images to justify the country’s violent campaign against drug dealers, even though fact checkers later realized that the images were actually taken in Brazil. Fake news also spread widely in the lead up to elections in Indonesia and a fake article about the Colombian peace deal with the FARC went viral shortly before the referendum vote. The problem was so disruptive that some African nations shut down social media sites after unconfirmed security threats spread before elections.

Fake news certainly has precedent in the United States. From the late 1890s through to the 1920s something known as Yellow Journalism reigned. During that period, competing newspapers would publish sensational and often false stories, each more so than the last, in an effort to win eyeballs. The scourge of Yellow Journalism became so bad at one point that many believe it contributed to the Spanish-American War of 1898.

Conclusion

So what is to be done about this problem? Some suggest that Google and Facebook could help create a crowd-sourced list of news stories that can be peer-reviewed. Others argue that big companies should not have the power to determine what is true. Recent efforts to reduce fake news sites’ access to the biggest advertising networks may help get rid of their financial incentives, but alternative ad networks may not follow suit.

The example of Yellow Journalism may also be a model to look at. The exaggerated and fabricated news stories at the turn of the 20th century were ultimately undone by waning public interest, court cases that protected the privacy of individuals, and a code of ethics adopted by many newspapers. But in the modern news environment centered around internet, and the abundance of media that comes with it, it may be difficult to weed out these stories altogether.

In the meantime, identifying fake news is a case by case effort that requires everyone’s diligence. It requires a balancing act of separating reality from fiction, but also a tolerance for information that you may not agree with and a skepticism for that which confirms your existing beliefs. Efforts of this nature are already underway on the platforms where most fake news is found. Now it is up to readers to determine if what they see is legitimate or not. If anything, the rise of fake news may drive people to become more critical news consumers.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Reality Behind Fake News appeared first on Law Street.

Facebook has been blocked in China since 2009, but now the company is secretly developing a censorship tool that would help it gain access to the Chinese market again. The tool would allow another company–likely a Chinese partner–to block certain posts from appearing in people’s newsfeeds in different geographic areas, according to some Facebook employees who asked to remain anonymous. They said that Facebook would not suppress content itself, but the software would be available for a third party company. If the resulting software makes the Chinese government more comfortable with Facebook’s services, this may allow Facebook to get back into the Chinese market.

However, the employees pointed out that this is still in the research stage and may never be offered to Chinese authorities at all. But the information raises questions about Facebook’s ethics. It would give the company 1.4 billion potential new users if they gained access to the Chinese market. But it could also be a compromise of democratic values and making “the world more open,” as the company has named as one of its mottos. Several employees that worked on the censorship project have quit their jobs, according to the New York Times. Since the American election, the phenomenon of fake news has also tarnished the company’s image, and many asked what role the social media site played in the election outcome. Now the question is, if the company is cool with censoring real news in China, why not just block fake news at home?

It’s fascinating people think Facebook will ONLY block “real news” in China and ONLY block “fake news” in US https://t.co/oVPn1iiVrW

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 23, 2016

So, blatantly fake news is too hard a problem for Facebook, but letting a third-party Chinese company disappear real news in China is okay?

— Zeynep Tufekci (@zeynep) November 22, 2016

The problem is probably that it’s hard to quickly decide what is fake and what is not. Mark Zuckerberg posted a long status update about how 99 percent of what you see on your newsfeed is correct, but depending on what pages you follow or who your friends are, you might see a little more or less. He responded to the criticism by stopping ads from fake news outlets and pointed out that Facebook does not want hoaxes on its site. This is not enough, according to many, but he promised that more would be done when a good strategy is available, saying:

This is an area where I believe we must proceed very carefully though. Identifying the ‘truth’ is complicated. While some hoaxes can be completely debunked, a greater amount of content, including from mainstream sources, often gets the basic idea right but some details wrong or omitted.

But creating a censorship tool for China contradicts Facebook’s image of being an ethical and socially aware company. Even if Facebook technically just developed the software, it could still enable totalitarian leaders to leave out information and decide what their citizens see and don’t see. Maybe the creator of the main information source for billions of people should take an even greater responsibility to prevent that.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook is Developing a Censorship Tool to Get Back into the Chinese Market appeared first on Law Street.

The World Health Organization just published a report regarding online junk food advertisements targeted at children, and called for immediate action by policy makers.

The report analyzed the frequency of marketing products targeting children through digital media–finding that children are exposed to these advertisements not only through social media but also on advertisement-based games. Most parents are unaware of the fact that their children are exposed every day to junk food advertisements, which take their toll on kids’ minds, WHO reported.

Researchers pegged food advertisements as a consistent influencer on children’s food choices. Dr. Emma Boyland of the University of Liverpool said,

The food, marketing and digital industries have access to an enormous amount of information regarding young people’s exposure to HFSS (high fat salt or sugar) food marketing online and its influence on children’s behaviour, yet external researchers are excluded from these privately held insights, which increases the power imbalances between industry and public health.

The report attacked the way some video bloggers get paid by junk food retailers to promote their food. According to a U.S. analysis, vloggers are now more influential at promoting brands than films or TV shows because of perceived authenticity.

Some countries such as the United Kingdom have introduced rules to protect children from junk food advertising such as bans during children’s television shows, however, the report said regulation had “failed to keep up with the pace and scope of change in the media.”

UK child obesity hits record high – The number of young children who are classed as obese has risen to a record… https://t.co/my9GPed7jc

— Davalyn Corporation (@DavalynCorp) November 4, 2016

To address these challenges, the report suggested a number of recommendations. WHO recommended states acknowledge their duty to protect children from HFSS digital marketing with statutory regulation and extend existing offline protections online.

The organization is currently reviewing what foods and drinks can be advertised to children in order to compel private internet platforms to remove marketing of HFSS foods.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post World Health Organization Calls For an End to Junk Food Ads in Kids’ Digital Media appeared first on Law Street.

A few months ago Facebook faced criticism and close scrutiny over how the content of peoples’ newsfeeds and trending stories are actually curated rather than based on impartial numbers. As a response to that controversy, Facebook got rid of its human editors in September and replaced them with an algorithm that automatically puts the top article for whatever topic is trending on top of the page.

But even though humans still watch over the system in case something goes wrong, the algorithm has gotten things very wrong. The Washington Post revealed on Wednesday that Facebook actually has repeatedly trended fake news since the change. Reporters conducted an experiment by looking deeper into the Facebook trending topics, and found that between the period of August 31 and September 22, they found five totally fake stories trending and three that were deeply inaccurate. They also found that things like links to iTunes, blog posts, and news releases often trended.

And social media users have noticed.

Facebook is literally nothing but fake articles, ultrasound pictures, engagements and arguements. Zzzzz

— Jeff Michener (@JeffMich4L) October 6, 2016

“I’m not at all surprised how many fake stories have trended. It was beyond predictable by anyone who spent time with the actual functionality of the product, not just the code,” said an employee who used to be on the team that oversaw “Trending,” speaking to the Washington Post on condition of anonymity.

I honestly can’t wait for the election to be over so everyone can go back to posting fake articles about celebrities dying on Facebook

— Madison (@_madisonike) October 5, 2016

One example of a fake story featured a man being kicked off of a college campus for praying, which was misinformed–the man was able to fill out some papers to keep praying in the campus area, but a student who had joined him for prayer was upset about it. Then there was a story about how fantastic the new iPhone is from a satirical fake news page, a news release from a discredited medical organization, and a story about 9/11 that falsely claimed to have proof that bombs were planted in the Twin Towers before the planes hit them.

The trending function on Facebook exists to highlight the most discussed and newsworthy topics of the day for its users. It is hard to know what Facebook is planning to do about the fake news–at a recent news conference it was indicated that the company might add filters to get rid of hoaxes and satirical content on the trending function, as it has on the newsfeed.

But, as scientist Walter Quattrociocchi told the Post, Facebook is an ideal breeding ground for conspiracies and misinformation due to its users’ tendencies to cluster together in like-minded groups. And combined with the personalized content in the newsfeeds, the fake news stories that are adapted to peoples’ personal likes risk increasing polarization between groups, and undermining understanding of people that are different. So let’s just all take Facebook with a grain of salt and keep an open mind.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook Has Trended Fake Articles Since Getting Rid of Human Editors appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like every family has them–a treasure trove of embarrassing childhood photos. But what happens when those family photos leave the albums, household frames, or boxes, and make it on to social media? One 18-year-old woman from Austria is upset that her parents have posted a number of embarrassing photos from her childhood on Facebook, and is now suing them over those postings.

The 18-year-old, whose name isn’t being made public right now, claims that her parents have posted over 500 images of her as a child over the last seven years. Those include photos of her doing things like being potty-trained, bathing, and other normal childhood activities. But, she claims that the constant exposure of her photos have “made her life a misery.” The photos are viewable by her parents’ combined 700+ Facebook friends.

The woman told local press:

They knew no shame and no limit–and didn’t care whether it was a picture of me sitting on the toilet or lying naked in my cot–every stage was photographed and then made public.

Her father claims that he owns the copyright to the photos, but she argues that because the photos are of her she has the right to privacy. According to Fusion writer Charles Pulliam-Moore:

The family has a court date set for this November and if a judge rules in the girl’s favor, her parents could be forced to pay their daughter for damages as well as cover the cost of her legal fees. In addition to paying out monetary restitution, the court’s decision could set a precedent for similar legal complaints submitted by children against their parents.

There are plenty of concerns that parents should take into account when posting photos of their children online–such as those photos falling into the wrong hands–but being sued by their children probably wasn’t a previously well known one. While this case is being played out in an Austrian court, it raises important questions about who owns a photo and what decisions parents should be able to make about their children’s digital footprints.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Austrian Teen Sues Parents For Posting Embarrassing Childhood Photos appeared first on Law Street.

An attempted robbery led to a fatal shooting in a Walmart parking lot in Kansas on Sunday, and one shopper’s initial reaction was to film a video with her cellphone and publish it on Facebook, calling the shooting “interesting.”

When Wendy Russell Macrorie came back out to the parking lot after buying lightbulbs, the shooting had just happened. In the video she is seen smiling and chewing gum while saying, “So this is interesting, I’m at Walmart, which I hate going to, and this is happening in front of my car.” She then filmed two men with gunshot wounds on the ground while medical professionals tended to them. She ended the video by saying, “Gross, gross, don’t come to Walmart.”

Mom Posts Bizarre Live Video Of ‘Interesting’ Fatal Shooting Outside Walmart https://t.co/hNlKvUQWhj pic.twitter.com/HilKQwVPH9

— Elite Daily (@EliteDaily) September 12, 2016

Her under-reaction to people being severely injured was criticized on Facebook and Twitter.

Between this video by #WendyRussellMacrorie and the Bs heckling #Solange I’m so upset. We need to do better #whitegirls #getittogether

— Amelia Merritt (@oneinamelia) September 12, 2016

The shooting happened around 1:30 PM on Sunday, according to KMBC. A woman was putting her infant in the car outside of Walmart when two men approached her and hit her in the head. A man got out of his car to help the woman but one of the robbers shot him multiple times. Then another man stepped out from his car, and shot one of the assailants. He was identified as John W. Simmons III.

On Tuesday the second suspect, named Arthur Fred Wyatt III, was arrested. He was released from the Kansas Department of Corrections in July after serving a sentence for a 2009 involuntary manslaughter conviction. The man who first tried to help the woman and was shot as a result was a 33-year-old Iraq war veteran who is still in critical condition. The woman that the men tried to rob has been released from the hospital.

Since the dramatic Kansas shooting, bizarrely, two more Walmart shootings have happened. On Tuesday, a non-fatal shooting occurred in St. Paul, Minnesota. Early Wednesday morning, a Walmart employee fatally shot a man who tried to rob him in Sunrise, Florida.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Posts Bizarre Video From Fatal Kansas Walmart Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month, the government of Ethiopia blocked multiple social media sites–Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Viber–for days on end during the course of annual university entrance exams. The government initiated the shutdown in order to prevent students from sharing answers or otherwise cheating on the exams but went on to claim that it had blocked the sites because they were “a distraction” for students. It is not entirely clear from where the order to launch the shutdown came. Daniel Berhane, editor of Horn Affairs magazine, tweeted that there was no transparency regarding who made the decision and that the government issued no statement on how long social media would be blocked for. The ban on social media ultimately only lasted for a handful of days, as long as the examinations were held, but even though the duration of the ban was relatively short, its scope is troubling.

Ethiopia is not the first nation to block social media during exams–Algeria and Iraq took the same measures this spring after students published exams online. However, this could set a troubling precedent for government control of the web. The UN has defended the internet as a basic human right and has passed a resolution (albeit non-binding) that condemns nations that intentionally disrupt citizens’ internet access. Internet shutdowns have frequently been used in times of violence or impending violence–like during the terrorist attacks on Istanbul, during protests in Bahrain, Venezuela and across sub-Saharan Africa. There are arguments to be made that preventing people from sharing their location on social media can protect innocent people from being attacked if they are in imminent danger, but social media blocking is more often used to disenfranchise “troublesome” populations. Imagine if social media had been efficiently blocked for the entirety of the Arab Spring. Without social media access, populations cannot share their stories beyond the immediate, local level. In 2015, Freedom House reported that Ethiopia was blocking critical opposition websites, including international news outlets–outlets such as the BBC were jammed by the government. There was presumably no threat to the general populace if BBC ran its stories, there was only a threat to the government’s control of information voters were exposed to going into the election.

The UN resolution was a step in the right direction but its non-binding nature means that the council that signed off on it–which included multiple countries that have launched internet shutdowns against their own populace–has no imperative to truly monitor whether the internet is being denied without cause to certain populations. Activist organizations like Access Now work to protect freedom of expression online but short of drawing attention to the problem and encouraging pushback, there is relatively little they can do to block an internet shutdown. VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) have let users in China access Google, Facebook and other blocked websites for years but the VPNs are no longer a secret that governments are unaware of–they are well-publicized tools. As the methods by which the populace circumvents an internet blockage expand, governments are not falling behind. In nations such as Ethiopia where blanket control of social media is a task well within the reach of the government, there is no number of VPNs or new apps that can effectively prevent the disruption of personal expression online.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Blocking Social Media in Ethiopia: New Perspectives on Human Rights Violations appeared first on Law Street.

I have a bad habit. Every morning, in between snoozing my alarm 15 times and finally dragging my butt out of bed, I scroll through my Facebook and Twitter feeds. Usually it’s more of the same–more people I went to high school with got engaged, the (many) dog accounts I follow have posted cute puppy pictures, friends are bitching about a) Hillary Clinton, b) Donald Trump, or c) both. It’s an act of masochism, in a lot of ways–I don’t necessarily care about any of those posts (minus, of course, the puppy pictures.) As a journalist who focuses on law and policy for millennials, social media is a free window into the mood of the U.S. But as a consumer of all things law and policy, and someone who is paid to keep a finger on the zeitgeist, this week has been a nightmare.

It started with the killing of Alton Sterling who was shot by Baton Rouge police earlier this week. Although start is a misnomer in a lot of ways–if we want to look to the start we maybe need to consider the 136 black people killed by police this year, or maybe the 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman that sparked the Black Lives Matter movement, or even the fact that policing in the American South was in many ways born out of a desire to control freed slaves after the Civil War. But today’s not the day for a history lesson, and so for all intents and purposes, we’re going to start with Alton Sterling. He was shot and killed while held down by police officers, and then the protests began. And then, as always, voices began to drown out the protests. They said “we don’t have all the facts,” they said “he shouldn’t have been resisting,” and his criminal record was brought up time and time again, as though any of those were reasons for the police officers to take his life.

Then there was Philando Castile, a 32-year-old black man from Minnesota. He was pulled over for a broken tail light, a relatively routine traffic stop. According to his girlfriend, who was in the seat next to him, he was asked for his license and registration, and he told the officer that he had a concealed weapon and a license to conceal carry. He reached for his ID, and the officer shot him four times. He died that night. The protests began, and as always, other voices began to drown out the protests. They said “we don’t have all the facts, they said “maybe he moved too quickly,” and they pointed out that police officers are trained to deal with every situation. These were reasons given for why a traffic stop ended with a man dying in the front seat while his girlfriend sat next to him and his girlfriend’s four-year-old sat in the back seat.

And now it’s today, Friday, July 8, and there was a shooting in Dallas last night during a peaceful rally. Snipers shot 12 police officers and two civilians–five of those officers are dead. Three suspects have been taken into custody, a fourth was killed during a standoff. According to the New York Times, “officials said the attackers were planning to injure and kill as many law enforcement officers as they could.” And so again, I woke up and my Facebook and Twitter feeds were angry.

But this was a different kind of anger. I saw post after post blaming the tragedy in Dallas last night on the protesters, on the fact that we’re now talking about the injustices that have permeated American policing for centuries, and on the fact that sometimes there’s not just bad guys and good guys but that it’s much more complicated than that.

To blame the tragedy in Dallas (and it was absolutely a tragedy) on the Black Lives Matter movement, to blame it on the people who just want to make sure that justice is afforded to all Americans, and to use the deaths of five police officers who were working the protests to satisfy preconceived notions about how systemic racism in our justice system simply doesn’t exist, despite all the evidence to the contrary is an injustice–for Alton Sterling, for Philando Castile, for the five police officers who were shot, and for the country as a whole.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Terrible Week: Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, the Dallas Shootings appeared first on Law Street.

At this point, Hillary Clinton is for all intents and purposes the Democratic Party’s nominee. While there are still a few contests to go, Bernie Sanders has been all but mathematically eliminated from the race. Yet a lot of people are still upset about the fact that Sanders isn’t going to be the nominee–or maybe they’re just upset that Clinton will be. As a result, #DropOutHillary is trending on Twitter, and has been for the last few days. And while it’s certainly reasonable to use social media to vent about your preferred candidate, it may be time for some Sanders supporters to face the facts: Clinton will almost certainly be the nominee, and if we don’t want a Donald Trump presidency, it may be time to rally around her.

Here’s a sampling of some of the tweets, but they mostly either attack Clinton’s record, extol Sanders’, or bizarrely accuse Twitter of trying to suppress the hashtag:

#DropOutHillary You are being forced on us by #ElectionFraud, empty suit MSM, & corruption. We will rebel against this as profoundly as 1776

— Steven Wilson (@ibstevie) May 5, 2016

#DropOutHillary not allowed to trend after 500k tweets and no.1 worldwide? Why @twitter @Support ?

— Travis W Shores (@travisshores1) May 5, 2016

#DropOutHillary because the first woman president should be someone we can be proud of

— Diane Wald (@sleeperina) May 5, 2016

IS THIS REALLY A QUESTION ANYMORE???? @HillaryClinton @realDonaldTrump @BernieSanders #DropOutHillary #HillNo pic.twitter.com/pWDnrwLqlB

— J4D4BL00M (@mizt1f) May 5, 2016

#DropOutHillary because you’re a thief. You & the DNC have stolen our votes & disenfranchised us. #ElectionFraudpic.twitter.com/2l2OZPJleq

— Carol Leonard (@laughingcat2016) May 5, 2016

The anger against Clinton is palpable, particularly for some parts of the electorate. Fellow Law Streeter Sean Simon wrote an article about the hatred that many Americans have for Clinton (and Trump), pointing out that “if you don’t like one of them, chances are you really hate them.” That disgust for Clinton seems to be in full force right now, but as we get closer to the almost inevitable race between Trump and Clinton, it will be deeply problematic for the left if that kind of rhetoric doesn’t abate.

Clinton will be countering more attacks from Trump any day now, and if she has to deal with the same problems from the left, Trump’s jabs will hit even harder. Take the hashtag #DropOutHillary as an example–if you check news stories on the trending topic, a large chunk are by gleeful conservative outlets.

Public discourse should always allow us to vet, question, and debate our candidates. But calls for Clinton to drop out rather than discussing her platform in a constructive manner are unwarranted, unrealistic, and ultimately damaging. So for those advocating #DropOutHillary, is it really worth strengthening a Trump candidacy?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #DropOutHillary: Some on the Left Not Happy with Democratic Party’s Choice appeared first on Law Street.

Could you be arrested for attempting to be funny on social media? Apparently, yes. A 27-year-old man named Anthony Novak from Parma, Ohio is facing criminal charges for creating a Facebook account that parodied the Parma City Police Department.

The account confused people from all over the city of Parma as the two accounts were almost identical, except for what they were posting. While the real police department page featured posts about local happenings and updates surrounding crime in Parma, the parody account had satirical posts about the requirements to become a Parma police officer and other supposedly “inflammatory topics.” In one such post, Novak wrote

The Parma Civil Service Commission will conduct a written exam for basic Police Officer for the City of Parma to establish an eligibility list. The exam will be held on March 12, 2016. Applications are available February 14, 2016 through March 2, 2016. Parma is an equal opportunity employer but is strongly encouraging minorities not to apply. The test will consist of a 15 question multiple choice definition test followed by a hearing test. Should you pass you will be accepted as an officer of the Parma Police Department.

In response to the parody posts being shared on the fake account’s wall, the Parma Police department posted a statement to warn its followers about the Parma fraud:

The Parma Police Department would like to warn the public that a fake Parma Police Facebook page has been created. This matter is currently being investigated by the Parma Police Department and Facebook. This is the Parma Police Department’s official Facebook page. The public should disregard any and all information posted on the fake Facebook account.

Novak is facing potential felony charges for disrupting public services through his use of satire on his parody account. The question of whether or not this is an infringement on Novak’s freedom of speech has been brought up in the conversation about if he should be charged. Lieutenant Kevin Riley argues that the material posted on the fake website caused a risk to public safety because of its inflammatory and derogatory nature. Because this material crossed the line from funny satire to potentially harmful, Novak’s arguments are criminal.

Did Novak’s satire cause any harm to the citizens of Parma? The answer is unclear. Some people voiced a love of the parody on twitter.

The fake city of Parma police department page was hilarious

— Abby Roetzel (@abbyroetzel) March 3, 2016

Others voiced their irritation with the account in attempt to try to clarify what was going on for confused onlookers.

Somebody set up a fake Parma Police Department Facebook page. The REAL Police are working with FACEBOOK to shut it down.

— Scott Taylor (@ScottTaylorTV) March 2, 2016

Regardless of the public opinion, Novak will appear before a grand jury next week to determine whether or not he should face any charges for his actions. Ever since his arrest, several parody accounts on Facebook have popped up in his absence claiming to be sticking up for free speech. This case certainly poses an interesting question about how far is too far when it comes to satire and could be setting a dangerous precedent by telling someone they will face jail time for a parody Facebook account.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Ohio Man Arrested for Creating Parody Facebook Page of Local Police Department appeared first on Law Street.

Happy weekend, readers! Check out the top legal tweets of this week from Law Street Media:

Thinking Ahead

Law school cost approximately $6 a minute I’m going to start invoicing people for wasting my time #lawschoolproblems

— ThatGurl16 (@_ThatGurl16) March 3, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Emojis are a fun way to let your friends know exactly how you feel while you’re texting them, but, can they be harmful? In some cases, interpreting the meaning behind emojis is more difficult than you may think. What one person sends as a funny joke with a smiley face could be interpreted differently by the person receiving the message. In a world full of  miscommunications because of the lack of tone in a text message, it can be hard to tell just what an emoji means.

In this week’s emoji news, a 12-year-old girl has been charged with threatening her school on Instagram due to a post from this past December. According to the Washington Post, the girl posted an ambiguous message under a different student’s name involving several emojis, including the gun, knife, and bomb emojis. The message also had the word “killing” in it, although it is unclear what the full Instagram post actually said. Though the post was not under her name, the girl did admit that she was the one who had posted it when questioned by the authorities.

After the school received word of this potential threat, it notified the police. Police officers got a search warrant and managed to identify the girl through the IP address used to post the image. Once they determined that the threat was not credible, the authorities still charged the girl who posted the image with threatening a school and computer harassment. Her mom claims she was confused as to why her daughter would have posted something like this, but suspects that it may be in response to bullying. One of the biggest questions in the investigation was about what exactly the gun, knife, and bomb emojis really meant and whether or not they could be considered threatening.

Deciphering the meaning of emojis is becoming a growing concern as their popularity grows. This Virginia pre-teen isn’t the first person to get in trouble for posting seemingly threatening emojis online, and she most likely won’t be the last. Almost a year ago, a 17-year-old named Osiris Aristy was arrested after using a gun emoji pointed at a police officer emoji–which the police considered a threat against local officers. During the Silk Road Trial, the judge ruled that punctuation and emoticons were necessary to understanding the evidence presented to a jury, so all texts read on to the record had to include descriptions of the emoticons used. In a case last year, Jesse Enjaian claimed that messages sent to a girl he was allegedly harassing online lacked context when emojis were redacted from the messages. Enjaian argues that with the emojis, the messages took a very different tone.

The problem with emoji interpretation is that their meaning is extremely subjective. While one person might think that adding a winky face to the end of a text makes it fun and light-hearted, the person receiving the text might not feel the same way. The same issue pops up in court cases–does the addition of emojis make a statement more or less threatening? In addition to the question of how emojis can be interpreted, there is also the question of how our First Amendment Rights apply to the internet. Can we really say whatever we want? And where do we draw the line when it comes to threatening or violent speech?

There’s not a whole lot of answers to these questions yet since the age of cyberbullying and emoji use is basically brand new. What everyone should take into careful consideration when texting, tweeting, or posting anything online is the fact that, no matter how funny you may think you’re being, the meaning of your words can be twisted or lost in translation when communicating on the internet.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Emojis: More Serious Than You May Think appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine waking up one morning to find a picture of yourself all over the internet atop a negative, satirical article with thousands of comments. You probably wouldn’t be too thrilled. This nightmare became a reality for 22-year-old mom Karena Bennett, who stumbled across a photo of her with her family after her first son was born featured in an article about a made-up mom, named Anita Sullivan, who supposedly had 14 kids with 14 different men.

Bennett encountered the article after she was tagged in a Facebook post by someone she used to work with. Confused as to why she was being tagged, Bennett clicked on the link and was shocked to see her photo at the top of the page.

The article–which, just to be clear, is a satirical piece posted on a satirical website–quickly went viral. People all over the internet shared, retweeted, and posted the story, which is how Bennett found it so quickly. She was horrified to find out that this story had people all over the world thinking that she had 14 children with fourteen different men.

Even though they didn’t use her real name, Bennett is still worried that people on the street might recognize her and call her out for being the made-up mother from the article. In an interview with the Detroit Free Press, Bennet said that this story has tainted the picture of one of her fondest moments:

It was definitely a big shock. I guess it is what it is. Sometimes I feel like it isn’t such a big deal…It just stinks. I feel like I’ll never officially get everything down … It’s just hard. … It’s just still out there, and people are still commenting.

To the writers at World News Daily Report (WNDR) who put up this article, Bennett has this to say:

It’s unfortunate because some people could think this is harmless, but it isn’t. It can just keep circulating and circulating. I’m sorry, but someone has to take action.

In an attempt to hold someone accountable for disregard of her privacy and personal photos, Bennett reached out to several of her friends and family members who are attorneys to see if there was any kind of legal action she could take–she’d like to sue the website for defaming her character. Unfortunately, none of the people whom she spoke to have the skills to manage a case like this. Internet-related offenses are difficult to resolve and they often require a lot of time and money, which victims rarely have. Not to mention that issues like these are relatively new, with little precedent to help clarify new legal questions.

World Daily News Report also has a legal disclaimer on its site about its content:

WNDR shall not be responsible for any incorrect or inaccurate information, whether caused by website users or by any of the equipment or programming associated with or utilized in this website or by any technical or human error which may occur.

WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website – even those based on real people –  are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle.

Given the nature of the website, it seems unlikely that Bennett will receive any kind of compensation from WNDR. The real bummer here is that the emotional damage will never really be resolved. One of the worst consequences of the story going viral is all the nasty comments from those who thought the story was real. Several people also took to social media to share their opinion of her:

Anita Sullivan Jones broke a World Record by giving birth to her 14th child. https://t.co/3gAxvHzMNJ Record breaker indeed, or prostitution?

— Comrade. (@Nensoo_vission) February 19, 2016

https://twitter.com/BrownieLove75/status/700688057926717440

Bennett hopes all the chatter will die down soon and this whole nightmare won’t come back to haunt her later in life. She hopes that people will realize that the article featuring her photo is satirical (not to mention that it’s not actually about her) and will stop making ridiculous accusations about her family and moral judgment.

In the age of fast-spreading information and anonymity on the internet, it’s easy for people to be targeted without even knowing it. This story should teach all of us a lesson about protecting personal information, photos, and videos as much as possible online–otherwise, you never know where it might end up.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Woman’s Reputation Ruined After Her Photo is Misrepresented Online appeared first on Law Street.

In a world where over-the-top celebrity Twitter beefs are commonplace, we should never forget that you can still get in trouble for spreading lies about someone. This is especially true in the case of former “mononymous” music couple Ciara and Future, whose less-than-civil uncoupling has led to a $15 million defamation lawsuit.

Ciara reportedly sues Future for $15 million. https://t.co/eHOECVqzd7 pic.twitter.com/ZWmhQnSuVH

— Complex (@ComplexMag) February 9, 2016

Ciara filed the slander and libel suit against her former fiancé and son’s father after he made multiple “false and defamatory statements” criticizing her parenting skills and relationship with Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russel Wilson. If you’re on social media and stay relatively informed on pop culture, it’s not hard to figure out exactly which statements she’s referring to.

In January, Future went on a Twitter rant that started with a classy subtweet that read, “This bitch got control problems.” He then went on to write, “I gotta go through lawyers to see babyfuture…the fuckery for 15k a month.”

Before that Future had publicly bad mouthed his ex in July on the popular radio show “The Breakfast Club” after photos surfaced of Wilson pushing his son in a stroller. Around that same time, Future also appeared in an interview with HuffPost Live, where he overshared about his and Ciara’s sex life after Wilson had publicly divulged that the couple was abstaining for religious reasons. Future said, “God told me something else. He ain’t tell me to wait. I guarantee you that.” He then added, “We prayed afterwards though. After we did it, we prayed. That’s a true story.”

In the lawsuit Ciara states that Future’s defamatory statements were “clearly published with actual malice,” and  were  publicity stunts to promote his album release and tours. Ciara also claims Future made said comments in an attempt to disparage her character, destroy her reputation as a good mother, diminish her brand, and impair her professional career in the entertainment industry.

As a result she’s asking a judge to order Future to stop publishing personal information regarding their relationship and their son online, and delete the aforementioned tweets with a public retraction. She’s also asking that her lawyers fees be paid for and that she be awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages.

while Future was running his mouth, Ciara was gathering all her receipts for this 15 million dollar lawsuit. pic.twitter.com/5T6ze9wFqi

— CHRIS. (@chrissayssoo_) February 9, 2016

Not surprisingly, the large asking price has many fans divided on the issue, especially on social media. But the fact of the matter is that if Ciara does end up wining it’s unlikely she’d receive the full asking amount. However, from the sound of it, Ciara could end up having to pay Future himself after rumors began circulating that the rapper may countersue claiming Ciara made money off of badmouthing him.

If their history is an indicator of what’s to come, we can confidently conclude that things are about to get real ugly. Hopefully everything works out, for their son’s sake, the pair is stuck dealing with one another for 16 more years.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ciara Files $15 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Ex-Fiance Future appeared first on Law Street.

The attacks in New York City on 9/11 brought together a nation that every year since has unified on social media and internet outlets under “#9/11” and “#NeverForget.” When a mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut claimed the lives of 20 children, as well as six adults on December 14, 2012, we prayed and posted: “#PrayForSandyHook” and “SandyHook.” The terrorism in Paris on November 13, 2015 bonded the world through posts and photographs captioning “#PrayForParis.”

“Pray for Paris” courtesy of [Bensun Ho via Flickr]

Following the police shootings and misconduct of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, and so many more, a movement ensued highlighting “#BlackLivesMatter,” which morphed into the debated “#AllLivesMatter” movement. We picketed. We rioted. We protested and stood divided across the nation. We demanded societal change. When a mass shooting claimed the lives of nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopalian Church, we worked to mend the broken community and sent virtual support with “#PrayforCharleston” demanding more stringent gun control laws and mental health screening.

We have been victims and survivors. We have been divided, yet banded together. We have fought and we have been loud. So where is our unifying and our fighting fervor now? Where is our voice recognizing the 380,000 Nigerian brothers and sisters living within the United States whose families and friends in Nigeria are experiencing sheer terror at the hands of Boko Haram?

Boko Haram, an Islamic militant group whose name loosely translates into “Western education is a sin,” has been waging a murderous war in the poorest part of Nigeria in an effort to overthrow the Nigerian government. While the group has been slowly establishing itself between 2005-2009, it gained worldwide recognition in 2014 when it kidnapped 276 schoolgirls, most of whom have not returned to their families to date.

Mohammed Yusuf, has, over the years, rallied a following to the group through the widespread distribution of his speeches on tapes. So far, his followers have treated human beings like animals–slitting throats without reprieve. In 2009, Yusuf was killed in a security bust, which left the elusive and merciless Abubakar Shekau in charge of Boko Haram. His unforgiving and relentless tactics to make Northern Nigeria an Islamic state have left almost 20,000 people dead–slaughtered. There have been approximately 2.5 million people displaced from their homes and villages, children parentless, mothers widowed, and mass graves full of innocent bodies.

Image courtesy of [EU/ECHO/Isabel Coello via Flickr]

The scariest part? Boko Haram has made good on essentially every threat and every hellish promise made. Most recently, Boko Haram took to bombing the village of Dalori, in the northeastern part of Nigeria, where 86 people were shot, burned, or killed by suicide bombs. A man hiding in a tree heard the shrieks and screams of the children trapped in burning huts as Boko Haram soldiers and supporters destroyed the city. Government troops were unsuccessful in overpowering the militant group.

Boko Haram has pledged its allegiance to ISIS/ISIL and its members have set out to spread terror upon all those who are not willing to join them in their absolutely extremist path to form an Islamic state.

So where is the coverage? Why has the U.S. mainstream media failed to highlight this horrific situation in any detailed capacity? Where are the Twitter feeds and Facebook posts flooding with “#PrayforNigeria” statuses? And where is the action? There has been no lack of military action against ISIS and its ideologies, so where is the same level of response to a terrorist organization that has pledged allegiance to ISIS and has killed thousands? Forget the basic human need and the widespread teachings of terror–are we just willing to help if we have some personal or political interest in mind?

As media dictates the important issues that today’s society will focus on, particularly during election year, has our censorship failed the people of Nigeria?

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Boko Haram and Widespread Terror in Nigeria: Where is the Outrage? appeared first on Law Street.

Activism in some form dates back to the beginning of politics. The United States itself was founded on the back of a series of protests that incited a rebellion and created a nation. Protesting or, more generally, activism are ancient practices that have persisted to the current day. However, while speaking out is nothing new, the platform people use has evolved from face to face, to written, to social media. Protests were once announced through picket lines; now they are championed through hashtags, while the same constant goal of seeking to correct an injustice has remained. Read on to see the history of protests in the United States, how they have changed, and if they have staying power in a rapid-fire digital age.

 A History of Discontent

The United States has been a hotbed for activism even before its inception. Multiple protests in a number of states set off the Revolutionary War and led to an American nation. Protests against the powers that be did not stop there, in fact, they continued on almost immediately starting with Shay’s Rebellion. In this case, farmers in Massachusetts organized and fought against the government over taxes and penalties for debt. Although the rebellion was quickly crushed, the threat it personified hastened the end of the Articles of Confederation and the creation of the Constitution.

Protests diversified as well, with a shift from farmers to the issues of slavery and labor rights. In 1831, Nat Turner launched his infamous slave rebellion which claimed the lives of 60 white people in Southampton County, Virginia. That rebellion, along with many other events, laid the groundwork for the ultimate litmus test on slavery, the Civil War.

Even after the Civil War, race remained a contentious issue, but the battle over labor also took center stage. One of the most infamous examples was the Pullman strike of 1884. This strike over declining wages involved a mass worker walkout, nearly crippling the nation’s rail industry. However, the strike ended when President Grover Cleveland sent federal troops in to help local security forces root out the protesters.

The next century had many of the same issues, with frequent protests over race or labor grievances. It also saw several other groups assert their rights as well. One such group was women seeking suffrage. While the seminal Seneca Falls Convention was held the century before, women still found themselves unable to vote at the beginning of the twentieth century. However, after trying a variety of tactics of varying effectiveness, highlighted most publicly by protests at the White House gates during WWI as well as women’s service during the war, the government eventually granted women the right to vote in 1920.

LGBT individuals also began asserting their rights publicly with a major turning point coming at the Stonewall Inn in 1969 where protesters clashed with police. Native American protestors particularly reemerged during this time too. In 1973, at Wounded Knee, South Dakota the American Indian Movement seized the town and engaged police and law enforcement in a 71-day standoff where no one was allowed to come or go. The area had been the site of one of the most gruesome massacres in history the century before, when in 1890 between 250 and 300 people, including many women and children were killed without reason.

The major movement of the 20th century, though, was the fight by Black Americans to receive the rights they were granted following the Civil War. Along with the right to vote and an end to segregation, among many other concerns, this movement was distinct in its scale and use of non-violent means. The civil rights effort also became tied to other concerns of the era, including the fight against poverty and protests over Vietnam. While the protests organized by Martin Luther King as well as many against the Vietnam War preached peace, they were often met with force. One of the most infamous examples is the killing of four Kent State students in 1970 by National Guard troops. The video below looks at one of the most prominent moments of activism the Civil Rights movement:

The activism that characterized the first 200 years of American history was a ground-up affair that was often very violent. In the beginning, violence was used as means for both sides, although even then the authorities often acted as instigators. But beginning in the 20th century and taking focus during Martin Luther King’s Civil Rights movement, the notion of non-violent resistance came to the forefront. While this certainly did not lead to the end of physical confrontations between protesters and those they protested against, it signaled a shift in the tactics used by protest groups. But with the rise of personal computers and the internet, protests have shifted again, with protestors moving from the physical world to the virtual.

Going Virtual

Unsurprisingly, as technology has permeated the world, activism has shifted from grassroots to the internet. Like other types of activism, the digital movement goes by a variety of names depending on the means used; perhaps the most all-encompassing is virtual activism. As the name implies, virtual activism uses a variety of digital mediums to get its message out including: the internet, cell phones, proxy servers, blogs, online petitioners, and most especially social media.

While this type of activism has only recently come to the forefront, it has been around for several decades. It was not until the 1990s, though, that it started gaining traction through new platforms like the launch of MoveOn.org and the use of email by protesters to organize during protests in Seattle against the WTO in 1999. Virtual activism continued and increased during the decade of the 2000s with protests against immigration policies, terrorist groups, education cuts, and authoritarianism.

This type of activism really hit the mainstream in 2011 with the Arab Spring. In this case, protesters used social media to coordinate demonstrations, denounce authority figures, and circumvent government influence. In more recent years, protests and movements like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter have continued to articulate their concerns over the internet expanding the medium as a tool. The following video looks at the potential of virtual activism:

Effectiveness

For all of the internet and social media’s ability to reach unprecedented audiences and provide up to the minute information, one question continues to linger: is this form of activism actually effective, or is it quickly forgotten from one day to the next? Online activism certainly has its limitations, which generally can be divided into two groups: first are the technical limitations like access to the internet, computer literacy, and government censorship, to name a few. An example of this is Iran’s censorship of the internet following riots stemming from an election in 2009 dubbed the Green Revolution.

The second type of limitation is highlighted well by another Law Street Media explainer about Hashtag Activism: can it be effective without a physical presence? As the piece explains, the main criticism of this new age of activism is that it lacks traditional aspects such as a leader and the requirement that people put themselves in literal harm’s way, so it may not carry the same weight as traditional forms of protest. This argument certainly has some substance to it, but even some of the hardest fought-for gains have lost their impact over the years despite being earned the old fashion way. From successful movements like the abortion and voting rights efforts, countervailing forces have removed many gains. Whether or not that is a good thing depends on your views, but the point is that traditional protests can also struggle to become or remain effective as well.

The accompanying video looks at how social media can play a role in activism:

Conclusion

When people look at protests or activism, everyone wants to point to the seminal moments–when someone stood up to armed police officers or stared down a tank. However, these moments are few and far between. In the meantime, there is a lot of suffering that goes unreported, speeches that go unheard, and a great amount of effort that ultimately may not lead to anything. In some cases even when circumstances appear to change, another incident shows they have not or previous gains are repealed or reduced.

While the manner of protests may have changed, the nature of them has not. At the core of each is a feeling by a person, a group or even a nation of an injustice that simply must be corrected. This started with people in the streets, continued through television and has now arrived in individual homes and workspaces via the internet and social media. Does this change in medium make these movements any less effective or any less righteous? Ultimately, it seems like only time will tell.

Until that time, however, what is vital is maintaining a spirit of questioning, of dissenting when something is wrong. Dissent is not always bad–it often moves the conversation, opens minds and paves the way for action. After all, it was Shay’s Rebellion that prompted Thomas Jefferson to write his friend James Madison saying, “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.”

Resources

History: Shay’s Rebellion

History Matters: The Nat Turner Rebellion

Encyclopedia of Chicago: Pullman Strike

History: Seneca Falls Convention Begins

Civil Rights: Stonewall Riots

The Atlantic: Occupy Wounded Knee

Britannica: American Civil Rights Movement

New York Times: 4 Kent State Students Killed by Troops

Reset: Digital and Online Activism

Mashable: History of Internet Activism

TeleSur: What Became of Occupy Wall Street

Think Progress: Forty-two years after Roe v. Wade, The Sad State of Abortion Rights in the United States

Early America: Jefferson Letters to Madison

History Channel: The Fight for Women’s Suffrage

Encyclopedia of the Great Plains: Wounded Knee Massacre

Law Street Media: Hashtag Activism: Is It #Effective?

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Evolution of Activism: From the Streets to Social Media appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, Republicans (and Democratic masochists) cozied up to watch the fifth GOP debate of 2015. Hosted by CNN in Las Vegas, it featured nine presidential hopefuls sparring over mostly national security and foreign affairs questions. Some of the back-and-forths got nasty, including Trump vs. Bush, Cruz vs. Rubio, and watching the entire debate vs. my sanity.

But in a debate that focused heavily on the threat of terror, and the horrific actions of the San Bernardino shooters,  we heard a lot about political correctness last night. Most notably, according to serious contender Ted Cruz that “political correctness is killing people.” Slamming political correctness has become a new hobby for the Republican party, centered on the concept that Democrats are too scared of offending anyone that we have become weak on security.

Well here’s some political incorrectness for you guys: that line of thought is a fucking excuse, a waste of breath, and a complete misconception of the whole idea of political correctness.

The big flash point appears to be that despite the fact that one of the San Bernardino shooters, Tashfeen Malik, posted messages on social media that advocated for jihad and showed she was radicalized, the Obama administration didn’t catch it. Nevermind the fact that she used a pseudonym with heavy security settings, “that did not allow people outside a small group of friends to see them.” The Obama administration was too busy being politically correct to use its crystal ball to divine that those posts were hers when she applied for a visa.

So what, exactly, were all the Republican candidates that railed against “political correctness” suggesting? That pseudonyms not be able to be used on Facebook or any other social media site? Well that’s a Facebook problem, not a political problem. Or that we should monitor every single person’s social media? That’s awfully Big Brother-ish, and if there are ramifications for someone posting something, well, that could impede on our Freedom of Speech. Or is it just people who don’t look, sound, or pray like the Republican candidates that should be monitored–there was after all, certainly no way we could have stopped Elliot Rodgers, who sent a manifesto outlining his plans before killing seven people and had spent time on multiple forums extolling his hatred for women. But of course, Rodgers, as a non-Muslim young man, was a victim of mental illness, nothing more. There’s no way we could have stopped him.

Or what about Dylann Roof, who shot nine people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina? It’s widely suspected Roof spent time on a white supremacist site called Daily Stormer. The manifesto he wrote uses language pulled almost directly from that site. Should he have been monitored? Or again, were his actions utterly unpredictable, beget out of mental illness and not out of any sort of radicalization that made him believe he needed to slaughter Black Americans?

Can we also talk about the logistical issues of what the Republican candidates were seemingly proposing? The average American age 18-24 sends or receive over 100 texts per day. Overall, time spent on Facebook worldwide accounts for 20 percent of all time online. In the U.S., 74 percent of all adults use at least some form of social media—we’re talking 240 million people. Even if we only identify 1 percent of them as even a possible threat–still 2.4 million people–how do we identify those people in the first place? Yes, we have algorithms, but computers can’t interpret tone or intent. So unless we want the NSA to spend its time sorting through Facebook posts, we have some serious logistical issues here–the NSA has had a hard time processing the data it already has. The Republicans on that stage last night wanted you to believe that we have Muslim terrorists writing “I’m going to commit an act of terror” on their Facebook pages and that the Obama administration is ignoring it, but that’s simply not true.

The internet is an unprecedented thing that we have now–the concept that we have access to this kind of massive personal information on people and their thoughts. We do need to figure out how to optimize policies in a way that will best help with national security. But the idea that all that’s stopping us from accessing all the answers about terrorism is “political correctness” doesn’t recognize the huge logistical undertaking proposed, the potential Freedom of Speech issues, the anonymity the internet provides, or the fact that the government maybe shouldn’t have access to every corner of it. This debate isn’t black and white–it’s significantly more nuanced than that. It’s not just about flipping a “political correctness” switch and suddenly being able to see everyone’s posts (particularly if they’re Muslim) and pinpoint terrorist attacks. And the fact that so many of the Republican candidates last night appeared to think that was the case indicates that they either don’t understand the internet, or are trying to score cheap political points. Given last night’s totally off-base contentions, I’d be surprised by neither.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s All Shut the F**** Up About Political Correctness in a National Security Debate appeared first on Law Street.

There’s been a lot of hub-bub in the political Twitter-sphere lately over a young man named C.J. Pearson. He’s 13, from Grovestown, Georgia, a conservative activist, and he catapulted to fame after making a video last winter criticizing President Obama for how he has responded to terror threats. Since then he’s been a relatively recognizable name, particularly in certain online circles. But now Pearson has made a splash on a whole new level–he’s claiming that the White House blocked him on Twitter, and incited a political shitstorm in the process.

The video that first landed Pearson some notoriety was published last February on Youtube, and entitled “President Obama: Do you really love America?”

Since then, he’s kept posting videos, often criticizing President Obama or other popular progressive figures. He’s even weighed in on the increasingly tumultuous 2016 Republican presidential primary, supporting Senator Ted Cruz. He’s been on Fox News, and profiled in multiple publications including USA Today and the Washington Times. Most recently, he released another video criticizing President Obama for inviting Ahmed Mohamed, the young man who was suspended from a Texas high school after bringing in a clock that was mistaken for a bomb.

While I personally disagree with many of the points Pearson makes, it’s undeniable that he’s an incredibly intelligent, articulate, and passionate young man. As as result, he’s attracted a loyal base of fans, particularly on Twitter and Youtube.

So, when he posted this tweet yesterday afternoon, it gained a lot of traction:

Well, this sucks. pic.twitter.com/S9jESl5ybi

— CJ Pearson (@thecjpearson) September 23, 2015

It appears to show that Pearson was blocked by the official presidential Twitter account. The posting garnered plenty of uproar, with many criticizing the President for blocking a vocal critic.

However, the White House has vehemently denied that Pearson was blocked–Assistant White House Press Secretary Frank Benenati responded to the controversy via Twitter, stating:

Public Service Announcement: Nobody is or has ever been blocked from the @POTUS twitter account

— Frank Benenati (@Benenati44) September 23, 2015

After the White House chimed in, plenty of Twitter observers, conservative media outlets, and commentators continued to rally in support of Pearson, claiming that the White House was probably lying.

Now, liberal sites are claiming that Pearson is lying, pointing out issues in his story like the fact that a similar picture was tweeted out by a parody site a few days ago, and the fact that the White House would choose to randomly block a kid is ridiculous, even if he is a vocal critic of the Obama administration.

The entire thing has devolved into an incredibly stupid mess, the kind that exists only in a perfect storm of narcissism, internet access, boredom, and an election cycle. So, did the White House block CJ Pearson? Probably not–it seems a little too unbelievable and far-fetched of a story. But it’s a fun distraction from the impending government shutdown, refugee crisis in Europe, and the mess that is the 2016 primaries.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did the White House Really Block 13-Year-Old CJ Pearson on Twitter? appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past couple days I’ve seen a post floating around on Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media. It shows a blue strip of paint on a curb and is accompanied with an explanation of something dubbed the “Safe Harbor Initiative.”

Safe Harbor Initiative – a blue line on your curb to show support to your local police #SafeHarborInitiativepic.twitter.com/3vYzByXz8G

— Caitlin Gold (@shaolinmomma) September 16, 2015

The original Facebook post, which appears to have originated from the account of a San Antonio man named Anthony Welichko, explained the purpose of the blue line, saying:

To all law enforcement who see this line, know that the residents of this home appreciate your service and dedication to keeping the peace. Know that when you enter the neighborhood and see these lines that you are not alone or without “back-up”. We do not need the media to make our voices of support for our police and emergency services heard ( though it would be nice). Lastly, if you are in my neighborhood and mean to harm a member of law enforcement, know that decision may be hazardous to you health as someone has that officers back!

Please share.

As of right now, the original post has over 80,000 shares, and will probably continue to grow.

It’s a nice gesture, in theory. But it’s also important to recognize that despite being well intentioned, this could actually end up being a really fantastically bad idea. Police officers aren’t just civilians who pick up guns and badges are suddenly equipped to deal with emergency scenarios. Instead they go through serious and intense training–much of which emphasizes the need to protect civilians and secure a particular area. Suddenly having civilians barge in as “backup” could potentially be a distraction, and way more harmful than helpful.

As Snopes, the famous online debunker of viral claims, put it:

Police departments across the United States are consistent and firm in their guidance on this matter: civilians should not intervene with crimes in progress, especially when police are already on the scene. Those who do may end up injured (potentially fatally), and untrained intervention poses severe risk to both other civilians and responding officers. This reason alone is enough to be extremely cautious about spreading the “blue strip” rumor, as the police require cooperation with the commands they’ve issued to bystanders more than they need encouragement for the public to act as crime scene cheerleaders.

The post is being lauded as a great way to show support for our nation’s police officers. But concerns that the social media campaign is misguided are incredibly valid. There’s a lot of ways to support police officers in the community, including donating time, money, or resources. But encouraging vigilante support is fundamentally a  bad idea–keep that in mind before painting a strip on your curb.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Viral “Safe Harbor Initiative” to Support Police Officers May Be a Bad Idea appeared first on Law Street.

Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton take the battle online, Ted Cruz uses a War Games meme, and then there’s Donald Trump. Check out the slideshow below with some of the best campaign tweets of the week. For more election Twitter coverage, check out Law Street’s 2016 Voices.

Jeb Bush Calls Out the White House

For the first time in 54 years, the American flag flies above @USEmbCuba. #Cuba http://t.co/0O4X1m5bb8

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 14, 2015

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Campaign Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

One increasingly important tool used by law enforcement and various organizations is forensic imaging software. This technique can be used to create images of victims whose bodies are unidentifiable, photos that display how a missing person is projected to look in present day, or to bring to life skeletal remains in the hope of finding someone who recognizes the deceased. A recent Massachusetts case involving an unidentified young girl nicknamed “Baby Doe” has once again validated the importance of investing in investigative technology.

One group pioneering this technology is the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), a nonprofit organization that works with law enforcement agencies and families to aid in cases of missing and exploited children. The NCMEC utilizes a variety of functions to fulfill its mission of helping to find, aid, and protect children. The agency has had great success in the past through its initiatives, as it has assisted in the recovery of more than 208,000 children.

Computer generated imagery is a relatively new technology, although it has been used heavily in recent years in cases of missing or unidentified children and has proven to be vital in investigations. This unit was first instituted by the NCMEC in 1990, and has been used so far in 6,000 age progressions, 1,300 of them leading to children being found or identified through the pictures. CNN reports, “forensic imaging and age progression are often fairly accurate and can help find the missing or unidentified children.” When comparing images created by forensic artists to real life photographs, it is evident that they are very close to the real thing, and are an integral tool in most cases.

For example, a recent case in Massachusetts has renewed focus on the benefits of forensic imaging technology. The remains of an unidentified young girl, who is believed to have only been about four years old and has been dubbed “Baby Doe,” were found in a trash bag on a Boston Harbor beach about three weeks ago. Even though the following computer-generated image of her has been seen by millions of people, authorities have had little to no luck in their efforts to identify her. This tragic case has mystified law enforcement and captivated the hearts of Americans nationwide, as people continue to search for any clues that could lead to the identification of this girl.

Christi Andrews of our forensic imaging unit answers questions about her #BabyDoe computer generated image on @AC360 pic.twitter.com/REcBzAsxWR

— NCMEC (@MissingKids) July 14, 2015

"How can nobody miss her?" The plight of a "Baby Doe" found in a trash bag has moved millions: http://t.co/pucotZhcuI pic.twitter.com/fqE8fJbau8

— CNN (@CNN) July 9, 2015

Authorities are working furiously to find any possible lead that could help them to identify the girl, perplexed as to how no one has recognized her yet. It is not clear whether her death was accidental or intentional, and investigators are desperate for any information at all that could lead to her identity or the cause of her death. Law enforcement in Massachusetts has teamed up with the NCMEC since this agency is well trained in these types of situations and offers many useful resources, including its expertise in forensic imaging.

The image of Baby Doe was created by Christi Andrews, a forensic artist who works with the NCMEC and who tried to make the face of the girl look as realistic as possible using Adobe Photoshop. In order for Andrews to join the Forensic Imaging Team and become a specialist, a job she has had for twelve years now, she had to first receive extensive training in order to master the software. She constructed the image by studying the precise details and photos from the autopsy. The picture has been shared hundreds of thousands of times on multiple different social media platforms and seen by over fifty million people, but unfortunately, no valuable tips have arisen.

This type of software is instrumental in many cases because it assists investigators in their efforts to identify deceased victims, create realistic, up-to-date photos of missing people that can be used when searching for them, and can garner useful information from the public once released. In the case of Baby Doe, Andrews was limited to pictures and information given from the coroner, although when creating age progression images, artists can often utilize pictures of family members to analyze similarities and use this to generate life-like images. Our culture’s obsession with taking photos has actually proven to be useful when it comes to creating these age progression images because it gives the specialists more to study and compare to.

After these images are produced, they are distributed to the masses via a variety of platforms, such as social media, billboards, flyers, through news stations, or other sources. The goal is to have as many people view it as possible so that the likelihood of someone recognizing the subject and contacting the police increases. This tool is especially helpful in cases of children who have been missing for many years, because the age progression feature gives investigators a glimpse of what the children might look like currently. This is crucial because not only does it increase the chances of other people recognizing this person, but also the missing person themself might see it. There might be children out there who were abducted at too young of an age to remember and are raised in a new family, so if they were to see these images displaying missing children that resemble them, this might cause them to recover old memories or even come forward if they suspect that they could be the child. Forensic imaging software is a critical tool for a multitude of reasons, although most importantly, it can be used to solve cases that seemingly have come to a screeching halt.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Forensic Imaging Software: A Tool to Break Cold Cases? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey, fellow white people. If you’re not going to be in support of people rising up against racism in Baltimore–and elsewhere–then shut up about it. And listen (or read, or watch. There are plenty of sources that aren’t from white people–like the ones cited throughout this piece–that we can tune into).

Now. People of color who are incensed by white supremacy and the murder of Freddie Gray (and so, so many others) have as many viewpoints about the efficacy and ethics of property damage as there are… well… people. There is no one way to understand or react to protests, anger, and anti-racist (and racist) rhetoric, so I’m not suggesting here that all or even most people of color are comfortable with or support the hashtag #BaltimoreRising as opposed to #BaltimoreRiots (for example). The reactions of people of color to racist violence are not, nor have they ever been, monolithic.

But.

Go lecture the police about non-violence.

— Brienne of Snarth (@femme_esq) April 27, 2015

But. As people with white privilege–the privilege (even when we are queer, poor, and/or dis/abled) of living in this world without our every action being viewed as suspicious; without our every action being interpreted as representative of all white people; without fear that ourselves, our students, our children, our friends, our family, or our colleagues will be murdered by cops because they were walking down the street while Black–we don’t get to watch the uprisings via Twitter, shake our heads, and produce tweets like this:  

Can we just focus on the real issues and injustice behind the #BaltimoreRiots? People have the right to be angry, not violent. — Sarah K (@wildflower93x) April 28, 2015

Or this:

If you act like wild animals and ruin others property dont get confused when you end up in a cage. #BaltimoreRiots #BlackPrivilege

— The Counselor (@anyclinic) April 28, 2015

As people with white privilege (there is no such thing as Black privilege, as is made clear by the dehumanizing, racist animalization that accompanies “The Counselor’s” claim above), we don’t get to condemn Black people’s responses to systemic, pervasive, ever-present, white supremacist, violent oppression. This hypocrisy is especially clear when, as Derrick Clifton over at Mic highlights so well, we do not flinch when white people start fires in the streets.  

If we view rioting as a mass temper tantrum expressed through violence & property damage, white sports fans do that monthly. #Tradition — jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015

We do not flinch when white men–their privileged masculinity popping out of their face paint and sports jerseys–burn cars, set fires, vandalize businesses, cause millions of dollars in property damage, or injure over 100 people… drum roll… because their favorite sports team either won or lost a game.

Where are all the think pieces & coverage of the pathology of white culture every time white frustration vents violence & destruction?

— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015

So… according to the white-mediated mass media, Black people pouring into the streets because yet another young Black person was murdered by police for making eye contact with a cop is apparently more disturbing than white men whose entitled rage is so close to the surface that they will set cars on fire over sports and military forces covered in armor and locked-and-loaded with various deadly weapons aimed at Black youths…

You can’t “reform” the brutality out of the police. There’s no reforming systematic violence. You dismantle the institution itself

— Roqayah Chamseddine (@roqchams) April 28, 2015

We really need to re-evaluate what we’re afraid of, white folks. And we need to do it now.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hey, Fellow White People: We Need to Shut Up About Baltimore appeared first on Law Street.

Many aspects of our lives have escaped the shackles of the real world and gone digital. Most of our music, movies, work files, and even financial data exist in digital and cloud-based worlds with no tangible counterparts. But the transition to the digital realm has been slow and laborious for the largest and possibly most important data set of all: health data. The health care system in the United States has proceeded towards digitization with prudent caution; a glitch in a digital health system means more than a corrupted music file, it could mean the difference between life and death.

It’s easy to get caught up in the vision of a completely digitized healthcare system. Faster and more effective treatments? Fewer forms to fill out? Massive data sets that could vastly improve public health? Who wouldn’t be excited? Most people believe in the benefits, but the digitization of health data involves much more than just desire and ability. Laws, protocols, and privacy concerns slow digitization efforts like well-placed speed bumps.

Here’s an overview of laws affecting health digitization, how some people innovate around them, and what’s coming up next for digital health.

Health Data Laws: Well-placed Speed Bumps

Your own personal health information isn’t always just about you. A doctor can use your health data in two basic ways:

1. To treat you and only you. This is called primary use.

2. To inform broader public health decisions, including things like disease prevention. This is called secondary use.  For example, a University of Pittsburgh project called Project Tycho collected 88 million disease reports from the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality weekly report and incorporated them into an open-access database. They use it to study the long term implications of interventions, like the polio vaccine, over long periods of time. In this video, the Dean of Pitt Public Health explains that the project is named after Tycho Brahe, a Danish astronomer who mapped stars and planets–data that Johannes Kepler eventually used to derive the laws of planetary motion. He hopes researchers can build on existing work to make groundbreaking discoveries in disease prevention.

Health data gets complicated in secondary use. Laws protect individual privacy and ensure doctors don’t compromise personal health data for the sake of public health or research goals. As the technology for sharing and collecting health data has improved, legal applications have become more complicated.

Overall, different federal and state laws layer on top of each other to create a legal framework that protects health data privacy. The centerpiece of this framework is the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

The Health Information Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and its Privacy Rule

This rule limits the use of protected health information (PHI), which is health information that might be used to figure out your identity. Basically, no one can use your info without your permission. It oversees the gambit of entities that might touch your info in the entire healthcare system.

The rule isn’t a nail in the coffin for the use of data in public health. Entities can use PHI without authorization for the prevention and control of disease, disability, or injury. The law also allows unauthorized use of PHI for matters of national security and for law enforcement activities. Working with these exemptions, public health entities can make brilliant use of PHI. For example, the University of Maryland Center for Substance Abuse Research’s National Drug Early Warning System supplements traditional health data with data found on social media tools to find patterns that indicate emerging drug trends and launches interventions to fight drug use.

The system is just one example of innovation in spite of laws that restrict health data use. But when it comes to innovation, the unregulated types of health data hold the most promise. Current laws do not cover information that is patient generated. Therefore, private companies and organizations have latched onto the idea of patient generated data and what it could mean for overall health.

Innovations in Patient-Generated Data

People share a lot of other things online, why not something as important as health data? That’s the simple philosophy behind many new, and perfectly legal, tools that count on people to opt into sharing their health information for the greater good. With no regulations on the use of patient generated data, the research and preventative implications could be revolutionary.

Here are just a few examples of tools using patient-generated data:

Apple’s ResearchKit

Apple’s new initiative harnesses the research potential of the iPhone, which has sophisticated abilities to track actions and record information. It allows individuals to participate in studies through self-reports using their iPhones instead of traveling to research centers. It’s a goldmine of quantitative data possibilities for researchers trying to understand certain diseases as the ResearchKit framework opens up endless possibilities for accessing patients. Researchers simply build an app that suits their study and launch it.

Mount Sinai, Weill Cornell Medical College, and LifeMap already used ResearchKit to develop the Asthma Help app that allows them to understand what might be aggravating asthma symptoms. It incorporates GPS data from the phones with city air quality data to advise asthma patients of locations where their symptoms could be the worst.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Data for Health Initiative

This initiative doesn’t focus on collecting data, but dives into all of the data already being collected to determine what information has the potential to do the most good. According to the foundation, 40,000 health apps and wearable health devices already exist and produce a lot of useable data. They’re encouraging health professionals to look at data they already have in new ways.

University of Michigan’s Genes for Good Project

This project prospects Facebook as a potential recruiting ground for genetic research participants. The project aims to have people send spit samples to a laboratory and then fill out periodic follow up questions via a Facebook app. The participants’ personal information would still be protected. The researchers chose Facebook because it grants the ability to potentially recruit a more massive amount of participants than usual. As the researchers try to understand how the interplay of genes and the environment influence disease, more data helps make more robust conclusions.

How the Government Encourages Health Information Sharing

The government sees no reason for laws to limit innovation in the digitization of health care and has pushed out new programs that prove its commitment to digital efforts and information sharing.

In April, the HHS announced it would grant a million dollars to support community initiatives that promote the flow and sharing of health information. The money will support projects under what’s called the Community Interoperability Health Information Exchange (HIE) Program. The funds and the program will help the awardees use health information in effective, appropriate, and secure ways.

Additionally, the HHS also announced a new Federal Health IT Strategic Plan for 2015-2020. The plan tackles how to move forward in the collection, sharing, and use of health data in appropriate ways. The Nationwide Interoperability Roadmap came out in draft form this past January.

HHS Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell summarized the key purpose of the roadmap nicely:

A successful learning system relies on an interoperable health IT system where information can be collected, shared, and used to improve health, facilitate research, and inform clinical outcomes. This Roadmap explains what we can do over the next three years to get there.

What can we learn about health on social media?

Some people choose to take health matters into their own hands and social media empowers them to do so. As data and information becomes more readily available through social tools, previously unknown advantages and disadvantages could emerge.

Most recently in Belgium, a man became frustrated with the long wait times necessary to find a kidney donor in the traditional fashion. He took to Facebook to tell his story and recruit his own donors. He found eight volunteers but ultimately doctors refused to perform the surgery because it would be unfair to other patients waiting for traditional donors. This case provides a glimpse into issues of equality that might arise if more people use social tools to their advantage. Can someone use social media tools to find themselves organ donors when others can’t access the tools or even computers?

Social media has also taught us that more data isn’t always better. Not too long ago, Mark Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks owner, tweeted that people should get quarterly blood-work so they can better track their own health.

Doctors responded by saying that doing just that could have dangerous consequences. More testing produces more false or incorrect results and reveals other fluke abnormalities. The abnormalities might lead to unnecessary treatment that comes with potentially harmful side effects. Some did admit that Cuban’s vision might be one for the future–where tests have improved and the average person is well versed in analyzing his or her own medical data.

Prepare for Information Overload

The digitization of health care, whether done under HIPAA regulations or through open-source patient generated data, promises to usher in a new era of big data in health care that brings infinite possibilities for the health field. But more data does comes along with more complications. Will we be able to balance privacy with equality while actually using the data to our advantage? So far, we’re on the right track.

 Resources

Primary

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Federal Public Health Laws Supporting Data Use and Sharing

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: HHS Announces $1 Million in New Grant Programs to Help Improve Sharing of Health Information

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: New Federal Health IT Strategic Plan Sets Stage for Better Sharing Through Interoperability

National Institute of Drug Abuse: NIH System to Monitor Emerging Drug Trends

Additional

Public Health Reports: Big Data and Public Health: Navigating Privacy Laws to Maximize Potential

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: Using Data to Build a Culture of Health

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Launches Initiative to Assess How Data Can Be Used to Improve Health

NPR: Tracking Your Own Health Data Too Closely Can Make You Sick

The Atlantic: Should Patients Be Able to Find Organ Donors on Facebook?

Apple: ResearchKit

Buzzfeed: A New Facebook App Wants To Test Your DNA

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Healthcare Digitization: Balancing Public Health and Privacy appeared first on Law Street.

Amid sustained calls to “fix this now” and the trending Twitter hashtag #boycottindiana, Indiana’s Republican leadership has quietly been maneuvering to maintain the increased discrimination against LGBT residents that Governor Mike Pence‘s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA) enabled. The Indiana legislature voted this week to deny protective provisions that would have ensured that religious protections cannot be used to discriminate against LGBT people. According to Think Progress editor Zack Ford, due to recent legal developments, “outside of the few municipalities with local protections, anti-LGBT discrimination is still legal throughout most of the state.”

And although #boycottindiana is trending hard on Twitter, the RFRA is hardly the only devastating bill to come out of Indiana recently.

But it’s the only one causing majors trends.

Why? One of the big reasons: mainstream (read: overwhelmingly white) LGBT advocates, organizations, and issues have largely gained the support of big businesses and corporations. (Yes, I know that the pizzeria that supported the RFRA made an absurd amount of money from the controversy. But that’s not the systemic trend, which favors corporations making profit off of and cooperating with upper- and middle-class, white LGB people and organizations.)

Whiteness must be decentralized from the LGBT movement. I’m sick of hearing about Leelah Alcorn and not Blake Brockington #HisNameWasBlake

— Ryan Mishler (@storyofryguy) April 9, 2015

So what could be trending under the hashtag #boycottindiana, but is not?

An incredibly scary amendment to Senate Bill 465, which addresses the operations of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, was passed in the Indiana House this week. Though much ire and rage have been focused on the Indiana Republican leadership that was responsible for the RFRA, it was Democratic Representative Terry Goodin who proposed adding the drug testing requirement to the bill.

Drug testing requirements in order to receive welfare fundamentally introduce even greater racism into welfare programs: even though white people tend to use illegal drugs at comparable or even higher rates than people of color, people of color are arrested and imprisoned at disproportionately higher rates for drug related “crimes” than white people. This means that people of color who are welfare recipients are going to be disproportionately targeted by the new provision’s requirement that recipients with histories of drug-related “crimes” be required to undergo testing. These folks will be stripped of their welfare benefits if they fail two tests.

So… Why is the #boycottindiana hashtag not blowing up with rage over this new twist to already-racist policies? Do my fellow white queers think racist laws are alright while homophobic laws are not?

Racial justice is LGBT justice.

So… Where are the trending boycotts against all kinds of racist laws across the country, like the resurgence of Jim Crow-esque laws that suppress the votes of Black and Latina people by mandating ID requirements for voting?

Where is the #boycottwhitenessinLGBTorganizations hashtag? The #boycottmassincarceration hashtag, or the #boycottracism hashtag? The #boycottwhitesupremacy hashtag?

Oh, yes. We can’t boycott those things. They’re too integrated into what makes this country operate.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post There’s Something Scarier Than Religious Freedom Going on in Indiana appeared first on Law Street.

Periscope, a new live-streaming application, was launched less than a month ago, but it’s already making headlines with celebrities and ordinary people alike broadcasting their daily activities and conversing in real time. Live streaming is not a novel concept, but it might be the next big thing in the social media world. As people are ready to embrace this new way of interacting, “periscoping” may soon become a daily activity for many people across the globe. Read on to learn more about Periscope and what live-streaming applications can bring to the table.

What is Periscope?

Periscope is part of the next generation of social media applications that are based on real-time interactions. Acquired by Twitter for nearly $100 million and launched on March 26, 2015, the tool seems to be on the rise.

How was Periscope created? 

Periscope started two years ago when CEO and co-founder Kayvon Beykpour was traveling to Istanbul, Turkey. The protests in Taksim Square, near the hotel in which Beykpour was supposed to stay, became violent; however he couldn’t find any meaningful information on the web about the extent of that violence. Thus, the idea for Periscope was born. He had an urgent need to see the protests in real time, but there was no social platform to do so. Periscope has already demonstrated its abilities to capture events in real time, including live streaming protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and capturing the fires in San Francisco’s Mission District and New York’s Lower East Side.

How does Periscope work?

Periscope is an IOS application that can live stream what you see at any given moment. It can essentially broadcast your every move if you wish. People are already using it in a variety of ways, including artistically, conducting Q&As, walking around a city, talking, or just showcasing their everyday activities. The app also has a way to interact with those who are watching, all in real time. Viewers can choose to ask questions or leave comments that are shown through a trace of messages on the screen, like a live feed. Engagement can also be demonstrated through hearts that viewers can create by tapping the screen as many times as they like. This feature shows viewers’ level of engagement and interest–the more hearts that are tapped, the stronger the viewers’ levels of satisfaction and excitement are.

Unlike other live-streaming apps, Periscope lets you save your broadcasts for a certain period of time, which enables viewers to play back what they’ve already seen. The app also allows viewers to invite their followers to watch a live steam together.

Some users of Periscope report a need for certain technical updates, such as better search features, better browsing, and a better notification system. The developers have already fixed the issue of the “zoomable map” that could pinpoint a person’s location when live streaming, and are continuing to work on other improvements.

Watch the video below to learn more about Periscope from BeyKpour who speaks about his idea and the app’s capabilities.

Is Periscope the first live-streaming app? 

All in all, progressive technological advances constantly change the world of social media interactions and online communication. Facebook was launched in 2004 and forever changed the way people communicate online. Twitter followed in 2006. Both companies have continued to expand by acquiring photo and video-oriented social media platforms; Facebook acquired Instagram, while Twitter bought Vine. Now, new advances are under way and live-streaming applications may be the next big thing.

History of Live-Streaming Apps

Periscope is not the first application to allow users to live stream their experiences. Live streaming has been around since the 1990s when video recording and instant messaging became the big thing. The reason why Periscope is making  waves right now is because live streaming has moved into the mainstream, and people are more comfortable revealing information about themselves.

Even before the idea of Periscope was born there were an abundance of applications that could be described as under the live-streaming umbrella. UStream was founded in 2007 and provides free video-streaming services as well as paid ProBroadcasting options. YouNow, launched in 2011, allows live broadcasting. Justin.TV has been around for several years and just recently was renamed Twitch Interactive, a new platform to broadcast video games or any gaming-related content. Livestream is another app that lets users broadcast and watch live events.

Meerkat

Meerkat is a live-streaming application that was launched on February 27, 2015–one month prior to Periscope. In this regard, Meerkat can be considered the first “new generation” live-streaming app. The application really made its debut last month at SXSW in Austin, Texas. A number of performers were “meerkating,” aka live-streaming their shows, which greatly promoted the app. Meerkat is a real competitor of Periscope as both apps are brand new, well designed, and easy to use. Unlike Periscope, however, Meerkat doesn’t provide an option to save broadcasts–all of its live streams are instant and cannot be replayed.

Watch the video below to learn more about Meerkat from its founder, Ben Ruben.

What are the concerns with using live-streaming apps?

Live streaming applications such as Periscope and Meerkat raise certain concerns, including the infringement of privacy, intellectual property rights, and harassment and cyber bullying.

Infringement of Privacy

Clearly, live streaming can invade peoples’ privacy. If you are in a public space, anybody can live stream you, revealing your activities and location. The fact that one may not wish to be live streamed is irrelevant as there are no real remedies for it. Generally, when people are in public places they don’t expect privacy, but with live streaming, the invasion of privacy becomes more pervasive and inescapable. People can be streamed without their permission or knowledge.

Celebrities and politicians have even greater privacy concerns, as Periscope can provide users with the instant ability to live stream public figures if spotted on the street or in any other public place. It could completely transform the way famous people maintain their images and market themselves.

Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual property rights generally protect people’s creations, whether they are in the form of music, design, photography, performance, or any other artistic expression. Intellectual property rights include trademark and copyright laws.

Live streaming is an immediate recording of something that is happening at any given moment, and therefore doesn’t require downloads or saving a copy of one’s broadcast. This leads to confusion as to how to apply existing copyright laws to the new generation of apps that can live stream certain content. In their terms of use, both Meerkat and Periscope state that users are prohibited from exploiting third-party copyrights and trademarks in their live recordings. In addition, under United States copyright laws, it’s illegal to reproduce, distribute, display, or perform a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder.

As of now, live streaming is subject to the same laws that protect any copyrighted video, song, or photographic content. If one live streams, he distributes the content of his broadcast to an unknown amount of users and reproduces it at the same time. This can potentially infringe on artists’, publishers’, and labels’ copyrights if the content is copyrighted on the first place.

Simply put, if you live stream at a concert or sporting event, you could violate copyright laws, public performance laws, and exclusive rights of broadcasting stations to live stream an event. Most of the time concert venues and sport leagues clearly state on admission tickets their policies regarding video recording or streaming of the event. Not only can this violate the right of the artist to solely profit from her performance, but in the case of sporting events, can infringe on intellectual property rights of leagues and pay-per-view (PPV) producers. In addition, major television providers spend millions of dollars to obtain exclusive rights to broadcast games and other major events. Record labels’ performance rights can be easily infringed as well by live streaming sound recordings at shows.

It’s possible that live streaming performances and sporting events can also violate reproduction and distribution rights of copyright holders. As Periscope archives users’ live streams for 24 hours, it can potentially infringe on reproduction rights if the saved content is considered intellectual property.

Harassment and Cyberbullying

Using social media can perpetuate harassment and bullying. Generally, every social media platform has rules and protocols that prohibit pornographic or overly sexual content, as well as content that can incite violent, illegal, or dangerous activities. Periscope is not an exception–its community guidelines are crafted to prevent sexual comments and online harassment of any sort. However, the new app is still struggling with enforcing these rules as its instant messages are bursting with sexually explicit communications. It was reported that many female users have been sexually harassed while live streaming.

As Periscope exposes more intimate moments of people’s lives, the dangers of using this technology may become greater than those of other social media. The difficulty can be seen in its live feed, which vanishes in a matter of seconds–how can this dissipating content be reviewed? Private broadcasting settings are another worry as those can appeal to people who operate sex cameras or conduct other illegal activities.

Periscope is a very new app so there are expectations for future updates and technical improvements. The company has acknowledged the need to find a better solution for moderating users’ content, and is working now on a new feature that will allow for the easy and instant blockage of undesirable users.

What changes can live-streaming apps bring to our lives?

With live-streaming applications on millions of smartphones around the globe, changes in media coverage, politics, and advertising are imminent. But the biggest change may be manifested in a completely new kind of online interaction. With Periscope and other live-streaming applications, it will be easier to reconnect with families, and share happy moments such as weddings, birthdays, and graduations all in real time.

Live streaming can revolutionize news reporting by giving media outlets the opportunity to produce real-time news. At the same time, live streaming will create challenges for reporters as events and stories unfold instantly, journalists will have to adapt to the ever-changing dynamics of live-streaming reporting.

The advertising industry will greatly benefit from live-streaming apps, as well as experience difficulties in using such apps for marketing purposes. Live streaming can bring brands closer to customers, provide unbiased and instant feedback about products, and help to promote transparency in companies’ practices. On the other hand, brands that decide to live stream for the purposes of promoting their products may be overwhelmed by the amount of people they will need to alert about their live-broadcasting. Companies will need to make sure that every person featured in live streaming intended for commercial purposes has signed a release, otherwise the brand can be sued for violating personal rights.

The world of politics is about to change, too. Political campaigns can be live streamed, providing instant access to candidates’ everyday activities and all sorts of political events. Labor Secretary Tom Perez and Senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul are already using Meerkat and Periscope to live stream their political endeavors. Some financial and structural constraints of political campaigns may be diminished as live streaming is a free and easy-to-use platform that provides instant access to millions of voters.

Conclusion

Humanity seemingly has no other choice but to embrace new technology and welcome a new generation of social media apps based on live streaming. But as technology evolves so should our laws. There is an urgent need to rethink and reevaluate current laws pertaining to intellectual property rights and synchronize them with technological advances. There is also a need to create better ways to protect individuals from bullying and women from sexual harassment on the web. Media outlets, record labels, and sports leagues should also embrace new technologies. Consumers should be ready for a closer engagement with brands. Meerkat may have started the revolution, but Periscope made a mind-blowing breakthrough. We’ll have to wait and see what’s next when it comes to live streaming.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Copyright Office: Promoting Investment and Protecting Commerce Online: The ART Act, the NET Act, and Illegal Streaming

Additional

Australian Business Review: Periscope: Will the Live-Streaming App Be the Next Big Thing?

ABC News: Periscope, Meerkat, YouNow: Which Live Streaming App is Right For You

BBC News: Periscope: Anglesey Man Behind Video Streaming App

Billboard: The Meerkat Minefield: Legal Issues With Live-Streaming Apps

CBS: Periscope, Meerkat Threaten Multi-Billion Dollar Sports Broadcast Copyrights

Columbia Journalism Review: How Social Media Livestreams Will Impact Political Journalism

Customer Think: As Twitter Acquires Periscope, Live Video Streaming Apps Will Transform Social Media Marketing in the Second Half of 2015

DailyMail: New Live Streaming App Periscope is Already on Its Way to Becoming a Parent’s Worst Nightmare

Fast Company: Streaming Video on Periscope Just Got Way Less Creepy

Graham Cluley: Periscope Raises Privacy Concerns

Guardian: Periscope Up! Twitter’s Live-streaming App is Exciting Us, But Here’s How it Could Be Better

Huffington Post: Why You Should Care About Periscope, Twitter’s New Live-Streaming App

Huffington Post: What Does Periscope’s Live Mobile Streaming Mean to Media?

IT Business: Up Periscope, Down Privacy? Twitter’s Live Streaming Service Bound to Cause Controversy

Kerry O’Shea Gorgone: Meerkat, Periscope, Privacy and the Law: Is Live-Streaming Video Legal?

Legal Zoom: Copyright Law on Streaming PPV Events

MIT Technology Review: Broadcast Every Little Drama

New York Business Journal: Down Periscope: MLB  Set to Crack Down on Live Streaming From the Bleacher

The New York Times: As Twitter Introduces Periscope, Tech Titans Bet on Live Streaming Video

Providence Journal: So Social: Meerkat, Periscope Make it Easy to Live Stream From iPhone

Verge: Periscope, Twitter’s Answer to Meerkat-Style Live Streaming, is Now Available

Wired: Twitter’s Periscope App Lets You Livestream Your World

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Periscope & Meerkat: Live Streaming is the Latest Social Media Development appeared first on Law Street.

This won’t be news to anyone who experiences it, but this “just in”–being targeted and locked up by racism and the criminal justice system dramatically increases people’s experiences of depression, suicide ideation, and many other types of “mental illness.”

Except here’s the thing: like Bruce E. Levine over at AlterNet has shown, the U.S. government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has shoved under the table a survey that demonstrates the explicit connections between high rates of mental illness and mass incarceration, racism, unemployment, heterosexsim, and classism.

One of the most damning aspects of the survey is that the rate and severity of experiencing mental illness is double for adults who have contact with the criminal justice system compared with adults who don’t. (Seriously. Check it out.) There seems to be the perception that this country locks up people because they experience mental illness: this is often true, and is repulsive. But if we want to look at the proverbial big picture, we also have to consider the ways that mass incarceration–and the solitary confinement often involved with imprisonment–and the virulent racism that shapes the prison-industrial complex actually cause mental health issues.

Levine writes, “[f]or decades doctors — and Big Pharma — have pointed to neuroscience [as explanations for “mental illness”]. Cultural variables are often more telling.” Indeed. But by SAMHSA’s logic, why damn the system that produces these mental illness-causing oppressions when you can convince people to buy overpriced, toxic pharmaceuticals drugs and therapy from it?

Of course, people who experience these oppressions don’t need government-sponsored studies and surveys to elucidate the ways that racism, mass incarceration, classism, and heterosexism make many of us live with severely impaired mental health.

Personal Example Time: I am certain that my being a white queer woman in this society fundamentally shaped my diagnoses as depressed and bipolar. Expected to be easily “corrupted” and traumatized because of my whiteness and white privilege; expected to be dedicated to others and feel guilty for putting myself first because of my womanness and heterosexism; expected to daily endure the structural and interpersonal impacts of sexism and queerphobia and always be “polite” about it…my diagnoses (and the feelings that precipitated seeking them) are not surprising.

White men–much like those who shoot people in schools and much like Germanwings co-pilot Andrea Lupitz–are routinely portrayed empathetically by mainstream media sources (instead of being called terrorists) because of their emotional angst and “understandable” mental illness when they kill over 100 people. However, people (especially working-class women) of color who defend themselves against attack are imprisoned, villified, and pathologized. In light of this, the consequences of not addressing racism, heterosexism, and classism in mental health are… well… life-threatening.

And far, far beyond depressing: the causes and consequences are outraging.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mass Incarceration Leads to Depression, So Why Don’t We Stop? appeared first on Law Street.

There are a lot of stories about idiots who are wanted for one crime or another who get caught through social media. This might be because the police post their searches on Facebook and people see them and report the fugitives’ whereabouts. It could be the girl who posted a video on YouTube talking about everything she had just stolen. Or the guy who posted a pic of himself siphoning gas from a police car. Basically what this shows us is that many crooks are stupid and arrogant, and the man in this week’s story is no exception.

Christopher Wallace was recently apprehended in his home. This was a big score for the police since they had been looking for him for weeks after linking him to a burglary. How, you wonder, did they finally find him? It actually turned out to be quite easy. He spurred his own downfall by using the app Snapchat.

Wallace is obviously a big fan of the kid’s game Hide and Seek because it was a giant version of this game that he played with the cops. First he sent a Snapchat, which the receiver sent to the cops (never forget that phones are screenshot capable, people, because if you do, you might have some embarrassing Snapchat photos leaked just like this guy). In it, Wallace said he returned to his house. So the police took that as an invitation.

Courtesy of Giphy.

When they got to the Wallace household they were told that he was not, in fact, home. The police were not content at leaving it alone, so they decided to search the premises. That is when they got their next Snapchat message: Wallace knew that the police were searching, and, oh yeah, also, he was hiding in the cabinets.

According to the sheriff office’s Facebook page, “a search of the kitchen cabinets turned up some food, some pots and pans, and also a pair of feet.” Now, I assume that the investigating cops figured one of two things when they saw these mystery feet: either Wallace was guilty of a much worse crime than burglary or else he had not lied in his post and they had just won this weird game of Hide and Seek.

As it turns out, it was the latter. Connected to those feet, as the Facebook page relayed, was Christopher Wallace. As you might imagine, he was quickly arrested.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Peek-a-Boo! Cops Find Crook Who Snapchatted His Location appeared first on Law Street.

I’m an avid backpacker. While shopping for a new, sturdy backpack to travel across Southeast Asia, I asked my military friend for an old duffel bag or something similar to use. He responded, “No, it’s too dangerous. Wearing military gear through airports, or anywhere abroad can make you a target. Anyone with anti-American ideologies could rob you, heckle you, or kill you. So, no. Besides, we’re not supposed to.”

My friend is referencing the physical presence, but what about on social media? We might avoid posting our political views in fear of them affecting job prospects sure, but have you ever considered your online affiliations affecting your safety–your life?

This may be something the U.S. Government and Military personnel will have to consider in the digital age, especially since terrorist organizations all have social media pages.

A group calling itself the Islamic State Hacking Division posted the names, photos, and addresses of about 100 U.S. troops online, calling for attacks against them. Those most likely to respond will be lone wolves. A term given to individual terrorists who carry out attacks alone in the name of a greater cause…whatever that may be.

Investigations are underway to understand the validity of the post, the methodology the group used to attain the names, and the credibility of the group itself.

In theory, ISIS or any terrorist group could see a military car decal, a Facebook profile picture, an online entry to a military spouse support group, or even see you open your wallet with a military I.D. After that they could find you, stalk you…and then what?

That’s an extreme. Let’s say no attack is ever carried out. At the very least, these terrorists are inciting fear in our military families, pressuring them to limit their online presence–the pride they have in their careers and country–and effectively go into hiding. That’s an issue in itself.

One such Twitter account posted, “We won’t stop! We know everything about you, your wives and children. U.S. soldiers! We’re watching you!” The account has since been deleted. Twitter has been pretty adamant about suspending and deleting ISIS content. As a result, the group has sought refuge in Diaspora, a social site that consists of a group of independently owned pods, which makes it difficult for administrators to remove content.

It’s unfortunate we have to be vigilant against what’s exposed on social networks in the name of terrorism. We must continue to report graphic and hateful messages, and protect the honor of those like Steven Sotloff, James Foley, Kayla Jean Mueller–the list goes on.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS Uses Twitter to Publish Hit List of U.S. Military Personnel appeared first on Law Street.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is well known for its brutality and fighting prowess. However, to create a caliphate and establish its own vision of Islam, ISIS leaders have done more than win battles and intimidate enemies. Taking a page from the Arab Spring, the group has adopted a very modern approach to attracting its followers and spreading its message. Read on to learn about ISIS’ use of social media and the results of its campaigns.

Read more: Understanding ISIS’ Radical Apocalyptic Vision

ISIS and Social Media

The use of media by terrorist groups and even Al Qaeda, ISIS’ precursor in some ways, is not new. Under ISIS however, a transformation has begun. It started slowly–when ISIS was first on the rise it engaged mostly in simple, private media communications among its own members or dissidents. But with the fall of Mosul in June 2014, the group finally had its stage and was ready to broadcast to the world audience. Far from the grainy videos of Osama Bin Laden wandering around in the mountains, ISIS began live tweeting its actions and posting statuses on Facebook. On Twitter especially the group has been successful in delivering its message by commandeering popular hashtags.

ISIS Fighters have also taken selfies next to victims or in occupied areas in attempts to show how great life is under the aspiring caliphate. ISIS has even engaged in unsolicited product placement, flashing images of Nutella and Call of Duty in videos and other forms of media. Perhaps most importantly to its Western audience, it started attracting an English-speaking membership that could communicate directly to the English-speaking world. Perhaps no better example exists than the man known as “Jihadi John.” Born Mohammed Emwazi, he graduated with a degree in computer science from the University of Westminster, England. Despite his British upbringing, in 2013 he left Britain for Syria. Emwazi is by now a familiar figure, as he has been involved in some high-profile executions of non-Muslims.

ISIS has even utilized less popular forms of social media. For example, it’s used PalTalk, a video chatroom where radical clerics have convened to praise ISIS and its leadership. The group created an Android App called Fajer Al Bashayer (Dawn of the Good Omens) that provides users with up-to-the-minute updates on ISIS’ movements. The app also includes software that appropriates the Twitter accounts of the downloaders and uses them to further propagate the group’s ideology. ISIS even has its own magazine, Dabiq, which combines graphic insights into violence perpetrated by the group with interviews of its members, resembling a sort of gossip magazine. The video below details how ISIS has been using social media to its advantage.

Influence of the Arab Spring

How did ISIS end up turning to social media to further its cause? Well, it may have taken some inspiration from the Arab Spring. In 2011, one of the catalysts that fueled the Arab Spring movement was the use of social media to coordinate gatherings and denounce authoritarian regimes. While this has been employed for similar causes before, the scope in this case was revolutionary and transformative.

Various Middle Eastern leaders took notice and began to censor social media access they deemed dangerous. This may have had the negative consequences of chasing off progressive voices who lost faith in social media as a means of communication. But, it gave groups like ISIS ideas about powerful ways to attract members and money. The accompanying video explains the way social media has been used from Arab Spring to ISIS.

Have ISIS’ social media campaigns been successful?

How successful has the group been in attracting new fighters and inflows of capital? These results can be broken up into two categories: those who have pledged direct support to the group and the potential lone wolves it has inspired at home in Western nations.

Direct Supporters of ISIS

The first group includes people who have actually moved to ISIS-controlled areas. Many of them, particularly from the West, are drawn by the notion of a Muslim paradise. Often they feel out of place in Western culture. Many are young and eager to find a place where they can be accepted.

The message seems to be finding a plentiful breeding ground too, as thousands of Westerners, including teenagers, have already gone to the Middle East to fight for ISIS. Evidence of this startling trend can be found all over the West. In late 2014, there were three sisters from Colorado who were stopped in Germany as they were trying to fly to ISIS-controlled territory. More recently, the news has focused on three teenage British girls who are believed to have left their homes to join ISIS.

While ISIS is sinister in every way, its recruitment of girls and young women is especially so. Preying upon feelings of alienation and offering acceptance, ISIS has lured many women from Western nations to its cause. While many of these girls may dream of aiding a movement and finding a soulmate, they often experience something much worse. Their fates can include rape, forced marriages, and even enslavement at the hands of their alleged liberators.

How exactly is ISIS seducing these women and its other alienated recruits? The answer to that question comes in two parts. First, ISIS tries to attract attention and create a bigger name for itself. The end goal here is to project its strength and its ability to stand up to entrenched powers such as the United States. This strategy can speak particularly to people who feel victimized by the dominant cultures in the West.

Secondly the group has made a series of videos depicting how great life is under ISIS. These include highlighting the group’s charity  work, its efforts at establishing an appropriate Muslim state, and choreographed scenes of violence to appeal to viewers. ISIS also has responders who will directly engage Westerners who feel an inclination to join ISIS. These responders act as recruiters, echoing the themes of the videos that show the greatness of life under ISIS and the satisfaction women and others can gain living in an ISIS sphere.

The group is also getting some financial support online. ISIS has used Twitter as a place to receive donations along with recruits, despite the best efforts of the US government.

Lastly the group has been able to garner support and allegiance from other like-minded terrorist organizations through social media. Recently, the infamous Nigerian terrorist group, Boko Haram, pledged its support for ISIS and has even begun adopting some of its tactics for publication and recruitment.

Read More: Boko Haram: How Can Nigeria Stop the Terror?

Lone Wolves

Along with calling for would-be jihadis to come join the cause in Iraq and Syria or to provide donations, ISIS has also employed another tactic. It’s used social media campaigns recorded in French and subtitled in English to encourage radical action in Western countries. Instead of encouraging dissatisfied men and woman in these areas to come join the war in the Middle East, it calls for them to make war against their own governments at home. In this regard there also seems to be some examples of success on ISIS’ part. The most notorious so far is the attack on the magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris and the killing of hostages a few days later in a kosher deli. These, along with subsequent attacks on police officers patrolling the city, have been attributed to ISIS-inspired terrorists, although exact motives remain uncertain. The video below depicts ISIS’ efforts to arouse lone wolves in the West.

Fighting Back

While ISIS has shown a mastery of modern day social networks, Western forces are also fighting back. The United States has already launched a major social media offensive, dedicating a contingent of manpower and materials to fighting ISIS propaganda online. The British have taken a similar approach and adopted the American model for its own program. Both countries are also pressuring companies such as Twitter and YouTube to clean up their sites and rid them of ISIS propaganda.

It is far from clear how effective these efforts have been. Many experts caution against ridding the web entirely of ISIS and its supporters as their posts can be valuable sources of information on the group. Additionally, while the U.S. and British governments are launching their own offensives against ISIS, many people remain skeptical about how effective government-run social media can be. Lastly there are strategic concerns to be considered. While to most people ISIS comes off as repulsive, a mystique could be created about the group by denying it the opportunity to speak, which could further improve recruiting.

Conclusion

ISIS’ use and mastery of social media is intriguing. The fact that it uses sites such as Twitter or Facebook seems almost unbelievable, and stands in direct contrast to common assumptions about the backward nature of terrorist organizations. Additionally, the efforts in response by the United States and its allies also clearly show that the nature of warfare has rapidly changed in the social media age.

Despite the seemingly harmless means by which it communicates and disseminates its messages, ISIS remains a ruthless terrorist organization. It is also clear however, that it is successful both on the battlefield and on the internet. The next step for the West is how to counter ISIS’ message while pushing  back in Iraq and Syria. Unfortunately the military part will likely be the easier path, even as debate over putting boots on the ground proofs devisive. There’s a new battle being fought, but this time, it’s on our computers.

Resources

Primary

Anti-Defamation League: Hashtag Terror

Additional

Independent: Mohammed Emwazi

CNN: What is ISIS’ Appeal to Young People?

CBS News: ISIS Message Resonating With Young People From U.S., West

U.S. News & World Report: ISIS Ability to Recruit Women Baffles West, Strengthens Cause

Hill: ISIS Rakes in Donations on Twitter

Newsmax: Tell ISIS Aligned Groups They Are Targets

Fox News: “What Are You Waiting For?”

Daily Beast: Can the West Beat ISIS on the Web?

Daily Beast: ISIS is Using Social Media to Reach You, Its New Audience

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS and the Terrorist Social Network appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a good week for tech sites looking to prevent harassment. Earlier this week, Reddit banned revenge porn. Essentially, what that means is that it’s now prohibited to upload a naked or otherwise compromising photo to the site without the subject’s consent. That obviously won’t stop all instances of abuse and revenge porn, but it’s certainly a step in the right direction. But it wasn’t just Reddit that took such steps–Twitter also has announced its plan to combat abuse on the site.

Twitter has long been plagued by “trolls.” For the uninitiated to the Twittersphere, we’re not talking about the kind of trolls that live in dungeons or under bridges. A Twitter troll is someone who constantly and incessantly posts inflammatory or abusive posts with the intent to rile or incite a reaction. It’s usually, though not always a form of internet harassment.

Twitter has consistently been the home to many trolls–and the recent #GamerGate discussion brought many out to play. #GamerGate is a virulent movement that attacks women, particularly a few vocal feminist critics of the misogyny inherent in the gaming industry and certain games. The #GamerGate trolls have consistently and repetitively attacked women, tweeting horrible threats of abuse, rape, and murder. The women attacked by #GamerGate aren’t alone–many people, men and women alike, have reported being harassed.

Twitter wants to help put a stop to that, and the company has realized that it’s done a pretty bad job of combating abuse in the past. CEO Dick Costolo wrote in a memo:

I’m frankly ashamed of how poorly we’ve dealt with this issue during my tenure as CEO. It’s absurd. There’s no excuse for it. I take full responsibility for not being more aggressive on this front. It’s nobody else’s fault but mine, and it’s embarrassing.

It’s no secret and the rest of the world talks about it every day. We lose core user after core user by not addressing simple trolling issues that they face every day.

He also wrote:

So now we’re going to fix it, and I’m going to take full responsibility for making sure that the people working night and day on this have the resources they need to address the issue, that there are clear lines of responsibility and accountability, and that we don’t equivocate in our decisions and choices.

It’s in light of these revelations that Twitter is introducing more tools to combat these trolls. For example, it’s started tracking the phone numbers of those who are reported as abusers. How will this help combat harassment? Well, often when users are banned, they are able to easily make new accounts by creating new email addresses. It’s much harder to obtain a new phone number than a new email address. In addition, Twitter is streamlining its process for reporting harm. The company also announced some other “enforcement actions” that will be rolled out in the weeks to come.

The fact that Twitter is trying to take more actions to combat abuse is a good thing, especially in light of the news from Reddit also coming in this week. That being said, it’s not going to solve all problems. Twitter has promised to be more vigilant–let’s hope it actually owns up to the promise.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Sets New Goals to Combat Trolls appeared first on Law Street.

I have spent quite a bit of time on this blog focusing on women who have gone viral with their feminist actions. There have been speeches, performances, videos, and even hashtags that, within the past year, have pushed the feminist movement forward into the digital age and shed light on the huge difference between being a man and being a woman in our society. Supporters of such women should be proud of their positive influence, but of course for every feminist who dares to speak out, there are those who want to silence her.

We live in an age when news is reported instantly, where an unemployed singer can become a YouTube sensation overnight, and where we can all comment on every aspect of someone else’s life via social media. Some of those comments are positive, many more are negative.

Celebrities get hit the hardest by trolls whose goal in life is to sit at their computers all day creating drama on internet forums. And if one of those celebrities dares to speak out against a social injustice? Well, death threats are not at all uncommon, and whether they are real or simply the bluff of an angry teenager locked in their bedroom, social media has a huge impact on the lives of people in the public eye.

Washington Post writer Michelle Goldberg recently published an article about feminist writers and social media entitled “Feminist Writers Are So Besieged By Online Abuse That Some Have Begun to Retire.”

Yeah.

Apparently, sitting behind a computer screen with access to a Twitter feed gives people the right to insult how somebody looks, and even threaten people they disagree with. According to the article, many of the writers featured receive death and rape threats on a regular basis. If these threats had been made in person or even by mail, legal action could be taken, but what happens when hundreds of angry sexists with screen names like “M3ninist69” all make the same threat? What happens when whole online groups are dedicated to shooting down women? How many of those threats are real, and how would someone go about prosecuting them?

These incredibly negative and sometimes dangerous online exchanges force women who make their livings online to either a) engage extremely volatile followers by defending themselves or b) ignore them, sometimes completely withdrawing from social media. Many in the Washington Post article explain the damaging effect bodily threats and insults to their appearance have on their psyches, forcing some into therapy and others into retirement.

When you enter into a role that has a lot of public exposure, it is generally accepted that you will have people who love you and people who hate you. The sad part is, that love and that hate gets translated differently based on your gender. Men do not face death or rape threats, at least not to the scale that women do, because for some reason that sort of violence is restricted to women who dare to challenge social norms. Says Goldberg: “Women, urged to tell their stories, are being ferociously punished when they do.”

Feminists are no strangers to naysayers, and since the first wave of the movement have had to fight against the norms set by a patriarchal society. Never before, though, has feminism moved on this scale, and therefore never before has it faced so much resistance.

So how do we move forward? We challenge the naysayers, and while it is never easy to put up with verbal abuse, there will always be feminist writers to do so.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Social Media and Feminists: You Can’t Stop All of Us appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I am an avid social media user. I love all things social media but I have yet to cross the line into obsessively taking selfies and sending them off to anyone, let alone posting them all over the Internet. In today’s world it is almost impossible to find someone who has not taken one selfie and sent it to at least one other person. But one teen not only crossed the line in selfie etiquette, he showed how much he doesn’t value life.

Maxwell Morton, 16, faces first-degree murder charges, in addition to charges of criminal homicide and possession of a weapon by a minor, after shooting Ryan Mangan, who was also 16, last Wednesday.

A funeral was held for Mangan on Monday in a small town just outside of Pittsburgh.

Morton was dumb enough to photograph what he had done and then used the popular social media app SnapChat to send it to another boy. SnapChat allows the user to send a multi-media message that disappears within a few seconds once the recipient opens it. Thankfully the young man that Morton sent the image to was smart enough to save the image, show his mom, and then contact the police.

Morton also had taken a photo of himself with the 9 mm pistol that was used in the shooting, which was later found on the camera roll on his phone.

The amount of disregard for human life that Morton has is just sickening, and the fact that more and more social media is used for this kind of thing makes me want to delete all my apps and go back to an old school flip phone that would only allow you to make calls or send text messages..

Morton is being charged as an adult and could face up to life in prison. Life in prison. I think he deserves the death penalty. Something that the state of Pennsylvania does in fact still have in effect. Pennsylvania ranks 26 in executions for the past five years.

I have to wonder where this kids parents were, why he wanted to kill Mangan and where did he get the gun? Only time will tell.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teen Murder Suspect Takes Selfie With Victim appeared first on Law Street.

Schools are constantly feeling the push from colleges, the government, and parents to produce high performers; however, in order for young adults and children to learn, they need to feel safe in their learning environment. One thing that establishes that feeling of ease and safety is for it to be bully-free.

Kids and teens who find themselves becoming victims of either physical or verbal bullying can suffer from bruising and injuries, but can also suffer from depression, anxiety, fear, and low self-esteem. Students who are subjected to the highest levels of bullying have higher amounts of tardiness, absence, and dropouts. But what can and should schools do to prevent this issue? Read on to learn about the bullying that happens in our schools, the steps schools have taken to stop it, and what happens when schools don’t do enough.

How prevalent is bullying?

Bullying breaks down as follows, according to statistics from the National Bullying Prevention Center.

According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 50 percent of children are bullied at some point and ten percent are victims of bullying on a regular basis. Since 1992, there have been more than 250 violent deaths that were a direct result of bullying within schools, and it has also been a factor in several famous school shootings, including Columbine.

Cyber Bullying

Social media, text messaging, and other forms of bullying online have taken an issue that most students could escape at home, and made it nearly impossible to escape. Examples of cyber bullying include mean or nasty text messages and emails, rumors spread by social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles. Cyber bullying is especially problematic for schools because it often happens off campus and can even be done anonymously. Many schools even question what jurisdiction they have over things that happen outside of schools grounds.

The number of students being cyber bullied has only grown with “secret” apps like YikYak. The 2010-2011 School Crime Supplement indicated that nine percent of students in grades six through 12 experienced cyber bullying; however, the 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey found that 15 percent of high school students (grades nine through 12) were electronically bullied in that year. It is difficult to combat cyber bullying because just when one app or social media service is fixed, another emerges.

What policies and procedures do schools have in place?

Forty-nine states have anti-bullying legislation–Montana is the one exception–but that seems to not be enough. Schools have no way of enforcing some of the policies, especially when no one is a witness to the bullying. Many have claimed that coming up with actionable steps has proven to be more difficult than it seems because of the wide range of types of bullying. Illinois requires schools to institute social-emotional learning to prevent bullying, whereas other schools have mediation and continual programming. Five states don’t have any repercussions for the anti-bullying laws, while 12 states can actually pursue criminal charges against bullies. These sanctions range anywhere from suspension to community service or even jail time.

Many parents and administrators feel that bullying is a rite of passage of the coming of age process, or a way to toughen up students. Especially with male-on-male bullying, it isn’t always taken seriously; however, those entering the guidance field are starting to receive more training on how to handle bullying situations. The topic has been especially visible in media since shows like “Glee,” “Degrassi,” and even “Hannah Montana” have highlighted the lack of attention placed on bullying in schools. Shows like “Glee,” where the character of Kurt was bullied to the point that he left school, have resonated with students and caused many states to reconsider their actions against bullies.

Still, as the consequences make more noise, administrators, teachers, and students are starting to be held accountable for the behaviors within school walls. The Department of Education recently issued guidance to educators on when acts of student bullying could violate federal education anti-discrimination laws.

What can schools do to prevent bullying?

The truth of bullying is that it isn’t always easily seen, nor is it always black and white. Many people who bully have also been bullied. There is no preventative measure that will eliminate it 100 percent; however, what can be done is to curb the bullying to an immediate, manageable level.

Websites like StopBullying, Jim Wright Online, and the National School Safety Center all offer solutions to the bullying problems. Some of the highlights include programs, group activities, and even ongoing programs for both the bully and the bullied. They also map out the different things the schools can do in a situation where someone is bullied.

For example, an investigation should start immediately after the concern is raised. Anyone can raise the concern, including teachers, students, siblings, parents, bus drivers, and other faculty members. The next step is to have a meeting with the child to find out what is going on–but never with the bully at the same time. Peer mediation has its place, but it should not happen between a bully and a victim.

If the bullying is physical, there should be steps taken to provide for the physical safety of the student, and someone needs to alert necessary faculty and staff members to be on the lookout. The bully also needs to have one-on-one meetings to make sure he or she understands the severity of the problem.

The most important thing is that the school does a thorough investigation into the bullying so that it stops and doesn’t hinder anyone anymore–as bullying often has far-reaching effects that can even hurt the atmosphere of the classroom.

What happens if the bullying doesn’t stop?

Unfortunately, that’s a gray area as well. Many schools have faced lawsuits and fines because they didn’t investigate bullying enough. Schools could face anything from fines in court, being sued by the student or the student’s family, or even mandatory programs within the school. The biggest problems could come for the teachers and administrators who either ignored the bullying, or did as little as possible while it occurred. Some courts are even calling it child endangerment, especially in cases of sexual harassment, abuse, and hate crimes. An even bigger problem comes from cyber bullying and the photos that have been taken of students. Some of these images could be called child pornography.

Case Studies

Kara Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools, et al. (4th Cir. July 2011)

In this case, a student sued the school district for limiting her First Amendment free speech rights after suspending her for creating a website that was attacking another student in the school. The website, called “Students Against Shay’s Herpes,” stated that the student had an STD, and created a comments section to gossip about the girl. Doctored photos also appeared on the website. Along with suspension, she was excluded from school festivities like a Charm Review, and she was kicked off the cheerleading squad.

The appeals court said the web page was created primarily for Kowalski’s classmates, so the school had the right to discipline her for disrupting the learning environment. They concluded that Kowalski had created a “hate website” in violation of the school’s anti-bullying policy.

The Judge in the case, Paul V. Niemeyer wrote:

Kowalski’s role in the `S.A.S.H.’ webpage, which was used to ridicule and demean a fellow student, was particularly mean-spirited and hateful. Regretfully, she yet fails to see that such harassment and bullying is inappropriate and hurtful and that it must be taken seriously by school administrators.

Still, it is a tricky area for schools, as many could see this as a freedom of speech violation, and because the website was made outside of school.

L.W. v. Toms River Regional School Board of Education, 189 N.J. 381 (2007)

In L.W. ex rel. L.G. v. Toms River Regional School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a school district can be held accountable for bullying a student because of sexual orientation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD); however, this only applies when the district is aware of the harassment but fails to take reasonable steps to stop it.

The plaintiff’s mother filed a complaint under the LAD in the Division of Civil Rights in which she alleged that the defendant, the Board of Education, failed to take action in response to the harassment that her child suffered due to his perceived sexual orientation. The Division of Civil Rights found that the Board of Education was liable for the peer harassment that L.W. had endured. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Division on Civil Rights.

The case documented several years of abuse that started in fourth grade and continued into his freshman year, where he was bullied to the point of physical attacks. He was removed from the school and enrolled in a nearby district. As punishment for the initial bullying in elementary school, the school had students write apology letters. When he was taunted in seventh grade, the Assistant Principal broke up the fight, but found that L.W.’s behavior “provoked” the incident. More and more incidents occurred but the students only received verbal reprimands.

The school boasted a “zero tolerance bullying policy” the entire time. L.W.’s school addressed the policy in an assembly at the beginning of the school year, but there was no subsequent communication on the policy throughout the year. Eventually, L.W. withdrew from the school and enrolled at a school in a neighboring town. His attendance and transportation expenses were subsidized by the defendant Board of Education.

The Court concluded that the school had not taken reasonable steps to stop the bullying, and that there was more that could have been done on all levels. The Court differentiated L.W.’s situation from “isolated schoolyard insults” or “classroom taunts,” which is how the school had treated them.

Morrow v. Balaski 

At the end of 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal seeking to hold a Pennsylvania School District responsible for the repeated bullying of a student by her peers. The case involved Brittany Morrow and the Blackhawk High School in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Her bullying included racial threats, physical assaults, and cyber bullying. In one incident described in the case, Brittany was suspended after defending herself during a lunchroom attack. When her parents asked the school how to keep her safe, they suggested another school. They later filed a lawsuit against the Blackhawk school district and an assistant principal for alleged violations of their 14th Amendment substantive-due-process rights.

In their appeal to the Supreme Court in Morrow v. Balaski, the family said school officials “acted to allow the aggressor to return to school following her temporary suspension and despite court orders mandating no contact. They opened the front door of the school to a person they knew would cause harm to the children.” The appeals court ruled nine to five in favor of the school that there was no “special relationship” between schools and students and ten to four that legal injuries to the victims were not the result of actions taken by administrators under a “state-created danger” theory of liability.

The court was torn about the case, saying “Parents … should be able to send their children off to school with some level of comfort that those children will be safe from bullies. Nonetheless, the Constitution does not provide judicial remedies for every social ill.”

Conclusion

Bullying is a serious problem, and that is especially evident within schools. From simple teasing to physical threats and even assault, bullying weakens the education system. Schools are creating programs and offering tools to try to combat it; however, many people think that teachers and administrators are failing to properly address bullying. It isn’t always easy, when bullying now takes on so many forms, including on the web, schools have a changing relationship with students.

Resources

Primary

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals: Kara Kowalski v. Berkeley Country Schools, et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey: L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education, 189 N.J. 381 (2007)

Additional

Governing: 49 States Now Have Anti-Bullying Laws. How’s that Working Out?

AACAP: Bullying

Web MD: Social Bullying Common in TV Shows Kids Watch

Education Week: Supreme Court Declines to Take Up School Bullying Case 

Pacer: National Bullying Prevention Center

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bullying in Schools: Who Gets the Blame? appeared first on Law Street.

Sarah Palin has a unique place in my heart–after all, there are very few people who I can count on to continually surprise me with the weird scandals they manage to get themselves involved in. But she may have just outdone herself.

The most recent Palin scandal started with a photo she posted to Facebook on New Years Day.

Sarah Palin sparks online controversy with photos of her son standing on a dog http://t.co/UbPZKShNDIpic.twitter.com/MTQzRQIVbV

— Eyewitness News (@ABC7NY) January 3, 2015

It shows her son, Trig, standing on his service dog, Jill, in order to reach a high counter. To me, this read as a relatively innocent photo. I’m not arguing that anyone should stand on dogs–that’s not nice–but little kids climb all over animals all the time. Palin definitely should have grabbed her son rather than post a picture, but in my eyes, it’s not really that big of a deal.

But that’s where this goes from “OK, probably not the world’s best pic to post on social media” to batshit crazy in a way that only a story involving Sarah Palin and PETA can.

So, after that picture was put on Facebook, PETA released this statement:

It’s odd that anyone—let alone a mother—would find it appropriate to post such a thing, with no apparent sympathy for the dog in the photo. Then again, PETA, along with everyone else, is used to the hard-hearted, seeming obliviousness of this bizarrely callous woman, who actually thought it appropriate to be filmed while turkeys were being slaughtered right behind her in full view of the camera.

Full disclosure here–I’m not a huge fan of PETA either. I think what it stands for–an end to animal cruelty–is excellent, but I think that its reactionary policies have the potential to do more harm than good. Anyway, the group got all upset about the picture of Trig stepping on the dog, and then Palin responded with a very long letter on her Facebook page responding to the PETA statement.

Have you come down with a case of the common but exhausting “Wow-These-People-Like-To-Hear-Themselves-Talkitis” yet? Because I certainly have.

Palin’s statement started as follows:

Dear PETA,

Chill. At least Trig didn’t eat the dog.

[…]

Did you go as crazy when your heroic Man-of-Your-Lifetime, Barack Obama, revealed he actually enjoyed eating dead dog meat?

Palin is referring to Obama eating dog meat as a child when he lived in Indonesia. Palin’s ethnocentrism here is important to recognize; the difference is that Obama was eating food that was a cultural norm in the place he was living. He describes it in the same paragraph as eating snake. Furthermore, he was a nine year old. He didn’t have much autonomy in that matter–Palin as a full-grown adult had the responsibility to take her kid off the dog that he was standing on.

Moving right along through Palin’s letter, there’s a super weird part where she accuses PETA of being a hypocrite in a very strange manner, saying:

Aren’t you the same anti-beef screamers blogging hate from your comfy leather office chairs, wrapped in your fashionable leather belts above your kickin’ new leather pumps you bought because your celebrity idols (who sport fur and crocodile purses) grinned in a tabloid wearing the exact same Louboutins exiting sleek cowhide covered limo seats on their way to some liberal fundraiser shindig at some sushi bar that features poor dead smelly roe (that I used to strip from our Bristol Bay-caught fish, and in a Dillingham cannery I packed those castoff fish eggs for you while laughing with co-workers about the suckers paying absurdly high prices to party with the throw away parts of our wild seafood)? I believe you call those discarded funky eggs “caviar”.

What? I am very certain that PETA is anti-fur and anti-leather, almost rabidly so. What she’s accusing PETA of here isn’t hypocrisy but elitism. Which to be fair, I doubt that the people at PETA are struggling to put food on their tables, but the entire thing seems like a weird attack on wealthy people (and let’s remember, Palin is doing pretty well herself). So in a post about being hypocritical, Palin is hypocritical, and wow, this headache is getting pretty bad.

Honestly this entire thing is so silly and features some of the most dramatic overreactions I’ve seen in a while. So, I have some advice for both of you embroiled in this lovely little smorgasbord of misplaced outrage.

Sarah Palin: don’t let your kid stand on a dog. Or if you do, don’t post pictures of it. It’s not worth it. I know he’s probably not hurting the dog, but if you really want to be the role model that you claim to be, just be careful with the social media. Also, learn how to say “yeah, probably not my shining moment. I’m sorry,” without making it about partisan politics.

PETA: There are animals actually suffering. Pay attention to them. You just wasted manpower, outrage, and attention over a dog that is probably fed better than I am. Yet thousands of animals languish in shelters. Use your powers for good

.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sarah Palin vs. PETA: Welcome to the Overreaction Olympics appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, the city of Sydney–and the entire world–watched as a lone gunman with likely terroristic motives took over a cafe in the city and held hostages. It’s believed that approximately 17 customers and employees were held captive. It happened in Lindt cafe in the financial district. Details are still uncertain, but it seems like the incident ended with the gunman and two of the hostages dead and others injured. The stand-off lasted for over sixteen hours before police stormed the cafe and got out the hostages. Some had escaped earlier, others were there the full sixteen hours.

The shooter is believed to be one man, acting alone, named Man Haron Monis. He was an Iranian immigrant, and had been in trouble with the law before. He was involved in the murder of his ex-wife, and he had gotten caught writing offensive letters to the families of soldiers who had died in Afghanistan.

While it’s being called a “terrorist” attack by many, it’s hard to determine if that’s actually true. At one point, the hostages were forced to hold up a banner with writing in Arabic on it. It’s called the Shahada, and it’s described by The New York Post as follows:

The Shahada translates as “There is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger.” It is considered the first of Islam’s five pillars of faith, and is similar to the Lord’s Prayer in Christianity. It is pervasive throughout Islamic culture, including the green flag of Saudi Arabia. Jihadis have used the Shahada in their own black flag.

Unfortunately, it’s been misappropriated and used by some terrorist groups, including an Al-Qaeda linked group in Syria. However, it seems that this was just the act of one crazy man, and not necessarily linked to a wider group of any sort. Australia has purportedly had some issues with Islamist extremism recently, and it’s estimated that at least 70 Australians are fighting for ISIS.

Luckily, many members of Australian society have been admirably non-reactionary. In order to combat prejudice and anger today, the hashtag #illridewithyou was born out of reports that some Muslims were experiencing harassment on public transportation today. The hashtag has now gone viral, as an attempt to show support for the Muslim community in Australia. Here are, presumably, the tweets that started it:

If you reg take the #373 bus b/w Coogee/MartinPl, wear religious attire, & don’t feel safe alone: I’ll ride with you. @ me for schedule.

— Sir Tessa (@sirtessa) December 15, 2014

Maybe start a hashtag? What’s in #illridewithyou?

— Sir Tessa (@sirtessa) December 15, 2014

There have been remarkable examples of a community coming together through this hashtag.

This is not about religion. This is about a madman who should've been locked up years ago. Please be good to each other. #illridewithyou

— Evalicious (@deliciouslybad) December 15, 2014

#illridewithyou is a beautiful reminder that our compassion should precede our prejudice. Religions do not kill people. People kill people.

— Kushaan Shah (@kushaanshah) December 15, 2014

#illridewithyou is one of the most humane reactions to terrorism ever. Way to go #Australia

— Marcel LeJeune (@MarcelLeJeune) December 15, 2014

It’s heartening to see that Australia, despite reeling from yesterday’s tragedy, is still coming together as a country. Many other nations, the United States included, could do well to learn from our friend down under.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Australian Hostage Situation Ends: A Community Stands Together appeared first on Law Street.

Freedom of speech is one of our rights in the United States, and it is guaranteed by the First Amendment. So it is hard to believe that something like social media that a majority of us use every day, could be the exception to the rule that we can say what we want to say without fear of backlash. In general, there are exceptions that prevent hate speech, defamation, and threats. Some of these aren’t legal, just frowned upon by the society at large, while others can get someone in trouble. Social media sites allow for the spread of all types of speech, from spoken word pieces on sites like YouTube, to shorter phrases said in 140 characters on Twitter. The publication of negative speech has some positive and negative consequences. We’ve seen them play out in the last few years with events in Ferguson, the Occupy Wall Street movement, and every major election.

It is difficult, however, to choose which pieces of speech are worthy of protection from action and which can be used against someone in legal proceedings. Not everything said on social media can be taken at face value. What one person deems as offensive and disturbing may incite a different emotion in another person. Striking a balance between unfiltered free speech, political correctness, and censorship is difficult. Censoring what is allowed on social media may seem like it goes against our Constitutional Rights, but allowing a free-for-all on speech can lead to threats, bullying, and hate speech.

Social Media’s Impact

Speech is not, nor has it ever been, a completely good vs. evil situation. There is so much more behind a string of text than just the literal meaning of the words. This is what makes it so difficult to decide who and what has a right to be on social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr. Some countries, like North Korea, Iran, China, Pakistan, and Turkey, have completely blocked their citizens’ access to social media sites as a way to ward off the problem. They operate under the theory that if you take away the cause, you won’t have to worry about it.

Many websites and apps do have “report” features so that a user can alert the webmasters that something has gone wrong. This begs the question, if someone says something terrible on social media, and it is reported but nothing happens, who is responsible for the fall out? It’s an increasingly important topic across the world; this isn’t just limited to the United States.

City of Ontario, California, et al v. Quon, et al

In 2009, the Supreme Court of California heard a case that discussed the rights to free speech in text messaging between employees. Employees of the City of Ontario, California filed a claim in district court against the police department, city, chief of police, and an internal affairs officer. They believed that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated when their text messages on city-issued pagers were reviewed. The city did not have a text-messaging policy; however, it did have a general “Computer Usage, Internet, and E-mail” policy. Those employees felt as if that particular section did not cover their pagers. The court held that the city employees had a right to privacy in their text messages because there was no specific language about text messaging in the city’s policy.

This, along with several other cases about Cloud privacy has prompted many to ask the question: are Supreme Court justices too out of the loop to fully understand the severity of the problem? Most–though admittedly not all–Justices don’t interact with social media to a great extent. Perhaps one or two may have a Twitter account, but those are often controlled by members of their team. President Obama, who is largely considered more modern with technology, is the first sitting President to have a Twitter account, but there are questions about just who actually runs it.

 Anthony Elonis v. United States

This case concerns a Pennsylvania man, Anthony Elonis, and his post of violence-filled rap lyrics aimed toward his ex-wife. He didn’t use his own name, but rather the pseudonym Tone Dougie. His rap suggested that he should use his wife’s “head on a stick” in his Halloween costume. He used images that haunt the public mind, saying that he was going to terrorize a school as “Hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class.” Some of the other lyrics were extremely troubling:

There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts. Hurry up and die, bitch, so I can bust this nut all over your corpse from atop your shallow grave. I used to be a nice guy but then you became a slut.

He also rapped about killing federal agents. Tara Elonis, his ex-wife, felt threatened by the song. The court had to judge “whether the threatening speaker intended to harm anyone or whether the listener was genuinely afraid of being harmed.” Nancy Leong pointed out in the Huffington Post that, “because the Internet filters out voice and demeanor cues, online statements provide less information about the seriousness of the statement, and are thus more likely to be reasonably interpreted as threats.“

Elonis didn’t seem to be too upset at first, posting on Facebook: “Did you know that it’s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife? It’s illegal. It’s indirect criminal contempt … I also found out it’s incredibly illegal, extremely illegal, to go on Facebook and say something like the best place to fire a mortar launcher at her house would be the cornfield behind it …”

The case is ongoing and it has incited intense emotions from both sides of the fence.

The Good

What are the benefits of having freedom of expression on social media? Surely, it is a way for some people to vent their anger without feeling self-conscious, nervous, or upset without resorting to violent actions. Everyone has a right to say what they think. We’ll never know, thankfully, if Elonis would have followed through on the threats in his rap.

Retweets, liking, or even posting your own status can be as effective as screaming at the top of your lungs at a protest. Lately, Facebook has been full of posts that educated everyone on topics relating to racism and the plight of African Americans in modern day America. There are always a few feminist pieces floating around. LGBTQ statuses, articles, and debate appear often, as well. Looking into the comments of these pieces, it is easy to see a cross section of what people believe about the topic. After all, the best way to argue for something is to know why people are arguing against it.

Social media has also become a home to those people who post positive things about topics from body-positive Instagram campaigns to equal media representation groups on Tumblr.

The Bad

To quote Uncle Ben from Spiderman: With great power, comes great responsibility. Unfortunately, many people do not understand their responsibility to fellow man. People who don’t believe in the status quo (or those who believe in the previous status quo that is now shifting to another) can stir up some pretty harsh feelings. People have the right to believe whatever they want, but these more extreme views on politics, racism, sexism, and homosexuality can start verbal sparring matches that help no one.

People have been using social media to post threats that haven’t been taken seriously for years. Stricter online controls would help alert the authorities in some cases, and even protect the innocent. Social media can be used for internet bullying, which in some cases is worse than the traditional verbal bullying. Online gossiping and social media platforms allow the bullying to continually exist–a problem for both the bully and the bullied.

Conclusion

Social media is one of the best inventions of the last century. It allows us to stay in contact with people we would have left behind, and it allows us to preserve our memories in a time capsule. However, it can also make or break a person depending on how someone reacts. Truthfully, the problem isn’t a freedom of speech issue, but rather one of morality. Can we take morals and apply them to the virtual world?

Resources

Primary

Supreme Court: City of Ontario, California, et al v. Quon et al

Constitution: First Amendment

Constitution: Fourth Amendment

Additional

Slate: Are Facebook Threats Real?

Huffington Post: Constitutional Rights in the Digital Age

The New York Times: Do Online Death Threats Count as Free Speech?

Salon: The Supreme Court’s baffling tech illiteracy is becoming a problem

Business Insider: This Guy’s Facebook Rants Put Him In Prison, And The Supreme Court Will Hear His Case Today

Truth Out: This Time, “Free Speech” Cannot Prevail

ABA: United States v. Anthony Elonis – Third Circuit

Index on Censorship: 10 Countries that have Social Media Banned

The New York Times: Chief Justice Samples Eminem in Online Threats Case

First Amendment Center: Social Networking

Bloomberg: The 8 Most Important Cases in the New Supreme Court Term

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Freedom of Speech and Social Media appeared first on Law Street.

With the announcement last week that the grand jury decided not to indict NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo in the choke-hold death of Eric Garner, demands for social justice continue to dominate the media world. At Law Street, Alexandra Badalamenti wrote the number one most read piece about the futility of posting the copyright declaration on Facebook that so many people have done in the last week; Hannah R. Winsten wrote the number two most popular article about the presence of the Oath Keepers in Ferguson; and Noel Diem  brought us the third most popular article of the week–an explainer on the effect of social media in the recent protests in Ferguson and beyond. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1 Facebook Copyright Myth Debunked

In today’s world of multiple social media platforms and just too much to do, you may not remember the June 2012 and November 2012 Facebook copyright panics. In case you missed them, here’s how they went: Status updates surfaced from users who unnecessarily “formally declared” their posted material as off limits to Facebook. The hype threw photographers and artists on the social media platform into a frenzy, and those not employed by their intellectual property still worried about the protections over their personal pictures and videos. Read full article here.

#2 Dear Oath Keepers: GTFO of Ferguson

The Oath Keepers have descended upon Ferguson in response to the riots, taking up armed positions on the rooftops of local businesses to guard against looters. Working as a sort of vigilante militia, these rooftop patrollers are veterans, ex-cops, and paramedics. They work at night and, apparently, they’re prepared to shoot down anyone who crosses their path. Read full article here.

#3 Ferguson and the Effect of Social Media Activism

Social media has been a key part of the nation’s involvement in the Ferguson case since the day it happened. Protest footage was shown online as it developed through YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook posts. If that spark of anger ever dissipated, a well-timed hashtag could bring it back, and when the evidence was released, people joined together to comb through the details for more information. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Last Monday night St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch delivered a combative 25-minute address in which he seemed to blame social media for some of the fallout between the death of Michael Brown on August 9, 2014 and the announcement that police officer Darren Wilson would not be indicted for shooting him.

McCulloch focused his attention on the role of social media covering the story, blaming it for misleading the public and creating a martyr out of Brown from the start. He was particularly cutting to the people of Ferguson who witnessed or didn’t witness the event saying that, “within minutes various accounts of the incident began appearing on social media.” He continued on to say that the posts, mostly on Twitter, were “filled with speculation, and little, if any solid, accurate information.” His statement did little to quell the fire on social media platforms like Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. In fact, it might have ignited a deeper fury in the hearts and minds of those who were blogging about the incident.

Social media has been a key part of the nation’s involvement in the Ferguson case since the day it happened. Protest footage was shown online as it developed through YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook posts. If that spark of anger ever dissipated, a well-timed hashtag could bring it back, and when the evidence was released, people joined together to comb through the details for more information.

What would have happened if social media hadn’t been around for Ferguson? It’s unclear, but the impact of social media cannot be denied–it changed the face of a county, the life of a man, and the start of a movement.

Twitter

From the moment the shooting happened and continuing through today, Twitter has had a lasting impact on the general public’s memory of Ferguson and the events that followed. Tweets from Alderman Antonio French kept everyone abreast of what was happening, and were the source for information on the scene. The story spread far and wide, and may have been what some witnesses used when they discussed the event before a jury. Comments were made on everything from the extensive media coverage to the altercation between local police and a Washington Post reporter.

The near-constant trend of #Ferguson has not stopped since August, with nearly 3.5 million tweets around the planet in the three hours after the decision was delivered to the public.

That opening statement sounds like, "None of this would be a problem except the Internet."

— James Poniewozik (@poniewozik) November 25, 2014

People didn’t just use Twitter to talk– it was used to promote action as well. According to the Social Media Listening Center at Clemson University, the incident in Ferguson and the hashtags #MichaelBrown, #Ferguson, #DarrenWilson, and #BlackLivesMatter had the highest response to any event since they started monitoring the service. Listening Center Director Joe Mazer said that 90 percent of the Twitter mentions were negative toward Officer Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department. He said key influencers of the conversation were members of the media and the forces on the ground, or the people in and around Ferguson.

Much of that response was to organize protests, educate others, and spread the word about both sides of the case. Movements started on Twitter and many more grew because of it. In a country where people often say we don’t participate in government, simple sentences in 140 character increments have done what political leaders haven’t been able to do in quite some time: bring groups of people together through their feelings of injustice and anger.

#StoptheParade

Twitter took things to another level when activists in NYC took to social media and encouraged people in and around the city to gather together to interrupt the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. They used the hash tag #StoptheParade to plan the protest that was to bring the injustice from the grand jury result to the eyes of those enjoying the parade. While it unclear how many people were involved in its inception, or even who started the movement, it quickly moved from hundreds of tweets on Twitter to posts on Facebook and Tumblr. As the movement grew, a map was released to show protesters just where to gather.

We moved #stoptheparade to 12am due to weather here’s the facebook group + info http://t.co/AzuTGdyHTw pic.twitter.com/TI2M5tHEWJ

— VHS dad (@versacenudes) November 27, 2014

Though mainstream media didn’t cover the protests instead of the parade, videos and images flowed onto Twitter and Instagram showing peaceful protesters we well as those who got a little more physical. It seemed like the NYPD got word of the event, as there were many officers lining the streets specifically where protesters planned to meet.

Tumblr

Much of what is happening on Tumblr is similar to what is happening on Twitter, though there are of course longer posts with some more detailed analysis of court documents and personal responses. However, there is one thing that is very different: the Ferguson National Response Network. The network stems from an idea that protesters had before the indictment announcement, which is a system that allowed interested parties to sign up to receive SMS messages about the announcement. This was especially helpful to those who worked during the announcements. As that movement grew, there was a demand to continue this collection of activities, so they created the Network Response Team. The Tumblr page allows submissions for peaceful demonstrations, allowing other people to join in so that the event is a success. There have been more than 70 events and counting planned through the page.

Online Fundraising

Social media and internet resources weren’t just a refuge for those fighting against Wilson. There were two fundraising campaigns set up to raise money for the police officer when it became apparent that he probably wouldn’t return to the line of duty, either through indictment or from resigning. The sites were set up through GoFundMe, but they were eventually halted. There was also a Facebook page called “Support Darren Wilson,” which raised more than $430,000. That too was halted with only a parting message stating that interested parties should “Please redirect Badges for Darren to the Ferguson PD. Thank you for your continued support. We understand that there will be many unanswered questions and concerns and we will update supporters as soon as we have the answers.” Another site, Support Officer Wilson, has raised more than $235,000, but it also stopped accepting donations without an explanation. There were reports that the administrators of the pages were receiving threats over their participation.

So, was social media’s role in Ferguson good or bad?

The Good

Social media is great at getting information out quickly about ongoing events. One could just set his or her browser to “Ferguson” and it was almost a real-time display of the events. Networks are only able to cover one aspect at a time, but social media has access to the collective information. It also allows for the continued planning of events that need larger groups of people as a sort of grassroots campaign.

Social media also allows people to search for information that is relevant to them. While the major news networks were all turned to the events in Ferguson, communities in New York City and Philadelphia also had their own protests. By using Twitter, one would just have to search to see where the protests were–either to join in or avoid them during travel.

Finally, it is obvious that social media encourages everyone to be more active and aware of the world around us. Without social media, we would only be privy to the information released by the news media, much of which has been slanted toward one direction or the other. It allows us to have educated debates, understand the details, and make our own decisions.

The Bad

Social media may have hurt the legal proceedings in Ferguson more than it helped. Those involved claim that witnesses who were around the scene on the street claimed to have seen Brown with his hands up, however many of their accounts seem to have come from Twitter rather than their own experience. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani even went on record to say that those witnesses should have been sued for perjury. While some argue that this is just looking for a reason not to persecute Wilson, the truth remains that many eyewitness accounts didn’t match up.

Social media may have also played a part in the violence, stoking anger and fear in the hearts of those involved. We can all agree that the violence and looting that has erupted, though understandable to some, has left many with a bad taste in their mouths and is almost undermining the cause. Social media has a time and place, and if we can use it responsibly, it will help shape the way we receive, discuss, and process news.

Resources

Primary

Twitter: #Ferguson Tag on Twitter

Mail Chimp: Darren Wilson Verdict Text Message Service

Twitter Reverb: Real Time Display of Tweets

Additional

Bustle: Ferguson’s Prosecutor Blamed Social Media for Misinformation, Entirely Ignoring the Mission and Necessity of Social Media

LA Times: Fundraising Web pages for Ferguson cop still closed; it’s unclear why

Washington Post: Grand Jury Reaches Decision in Case of Ferguson Police Officer

Washington Post: How Social Media Freed Reporter

Mediaite: Indictment Announcement from Ferguson

WYFF4: Social Media Listening lab sees record posts on Ferguson

Ferguson Response: Ferguson National Response Network

Talking Points Memo: Here Is How The Prosecutor Described The Michael Brown Shooting

Talking Points Memo: Rudy Giuliani On Ferguson Decision: I’d Prosecute Witnesses For Lying (VIDEO)

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ferguson and the Effect of Social Media Activism appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine this: you’re in a car accident and as a result, break your arm. (Ouch.) You sue the individual who was driving the other car. The next month, you’re at a Jets game rooting for your team and post some pictures on Facebook, making one of them your new profile picture. A month later, your attorney calls you up, questioning if you posted pictures from the Jets game. As it turns out, the defendant’s demanding full access to your Facebook account to disprove your injuries. The big question is, are they entitled to access your Facebook account?

Discovery is an absolutely essential part of litigation. In basic terms, discovery fuels the arguments that each side of the lawsuit makes, by providing relevant information about the opponent. In the past, discovery typically consisted of documents, but as time and technology has progressed, electronic discovery has become more prevalent. This has raised some very interesting questions in Personal Injury Law, like the above situation.

Courts have a tough issue to handle. On the one hand, social media could be extremely relevant to a Personal Injury action. It could disprove a plaintiff’s injuries, or at the very least, make those injuries questionable. On the other hand, that is a plaintiff’s personal Facebook page. Why should the defendant have access to that personal account information?

The Balancing Act and Current Law: New York

New York courts have grappled with this issue and come up with a fairly reasonable standard in order to balance these competing interests. They have established a two-prong test for determining whether social media accounts are discoverable. First, courts must determine whether the content in the account is material and necessary. Second, courts must balance whether the production of the content would result in a violation of the account holder’s privacy rights.

For a defendant to successfully maintain access to discovery under this two-prong test, he must “establish a factual predicate for their request by identifying relevant information in plaintiff’s [social media] account-that is, information that contradicts or conflicts with plaintiff’s alleged restrictions, disabilities, and losses, and other claims.” In other words, the defendant must show that there is content on the plaintiff’s social media account that is not only relevant to the personal injury action, but also contradicts or conflicts with the plaintiff’s claims. If the defendant can establish that, then discovery of social media accounts should be permitted.

The courts have been fairly strict with applying this standard, however. The court will not allow a defendant to simply demand disclosure of social media accounts on the basis that access may reveal information that contradicts or conflicts with a plaintiff’s claim of disability. The court has labeled such a request as a “fishing expedition” and will not allow it.

The Car Accident Revisted

So, is the defendant entitled to access your Facebook account? The answer lies within the specific facts. In the original car accident example, the content of the photograph is key. If the defendant is simply asking for access to the Facebook account because it might reveal activities that contradict with the your claim, that probably will not be sufficient for the court to demand disclosure of your account information. If your profile picture portrays you fist pumping your broken arm in the air, however, it is more likely that the court will grant access to your Facebook account, since the pictures contradict the complaint regarding your broken arm.

The interesting part about Social Media discovery is that it is an evolving area of law. As social media websites continue to develop, so too must the law. It seems that New York courts have fairly balanced these competing interests thus far, but it will certainly be interesting to see what issues arise in the future.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Be Careful What You Share to Social Media During a Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

Millennials are often accused of losing their interpersonal skills because they depend on technology for too much. Regardless of what critics may say, technology and social networking play an important role in our futures in many ways. Millennials should take to their social networking sites not only to create larger networks, but also to showcase their skills for prospective employers.

Some websites are more directly associated with professional development. The most prominent website for such uses is LinkedIn, however Millennials should take advantage of Facebook, Twitter and blogging sites to market themselves as well.

Create a social resume.

In 2012, 92 percent of employers reported using social media for recruiting, according to OnlineColleges.com. Websites like LinkedIn make it easier than ever for users to showcase their industry-related experiences, projects and connections. However, there are a plethora of other websites that allow users to create different types of curricula vitae. More creative individuals may use ResumeSocial.com or VisualCV.com while more traditional individuals could turn their blogs into CVs using WordPress, Tumblr, or Typepad. Here are some examples.

Engage in professional conversations.

Whether it leads to taking part in Twitter chats or participating in conversations in LinkedIn groups, these activities will increase users’ visibility in their respective networks. Though Facebook is often used for social interactions, becoming involved in professional conversations on the site could also yield visibility to hiring employers. LinkedIn offers groups specifically for individuals seeking jobs in certain industries–join and participate in a group that pertains to your profession.

Participate in industry-related activities.

Actively seek job listings, conferences and chats using hashtags on Twitter and Facebook. Remember that each post you publish represents who you are through your online presence. Share thoughtful comments related to your field of interest and offer valuable input to conversations as such. The more active users are in specific topics, the more likely they are to create networks who can share employment opportunities.

Create a professional blog.

Sometimes Twitter’s 140 characters merely aren’t enough to express your ideas and opinions on specific industry-related topics. Your blog can double as an e-portfolio or social resume. This platform allows individuals to present their communication skills and work experience. Blogs are jobseekers’ way of creating relevant, interesting and unique information about themselves. Check out these great examples:

• Words to Good Effect
• Gary Vaynerchuk
• Moz
• The Smart Passive Income
• CopyBlogger

Engage with influencers.

Use LinkedIn influencer profiles to monitor industry-specific updates and innovations. Tweet at big name professionals in your field. Follow blogs of leading individuals in your industry. These different channels of social media will not only provide you with the most recent news in your specific area of interest, but also prepare you with valuable talking points at your next interview or networking event. Lastly, creating connections with influencers in your field could help you down the road.

The Internet provides endless opportunities for Millennials to showcase their valuable experiences, skills, and passion relevant to their careers. With so many resources literally available at their fingertips, Millennials should begin to think creatively about marketing their assets online. While doing so, Millennials should be careful not to plagiarize, badmouth former employers, or repeatedly post about controversial topics.

Use the Internet to your advantage to contact future employers in new, creative ways. Create video or photo resumes, design your own logo and showcase your passion through personalized posts. The age of online recruiting is on the rise and Millennials can beat the curve by creatively showcasing themselves through various platforms.

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Use Social Media to Land a Job appeared first on Law Street.

Signing onto your Facebook or Twitter account has become a social media oversharing gram of Russian Roulette with engagements, weddings, pregnancies, stomach viruses, break ups, make ups, Taylor Swift lyrics, celebrations, political opinions, moves, and that weird ingrown hair in that girl who lived down the hall from you freshman year that she’s pretty sure is infected but she’s going to ask her “Nurse Friends” just in case.

No matter where we post — Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, SnapChat — it’s all the same: we are sharing some of our private thoughts and feelings that at best will embarrass us later in life, and at worst can cost us jobs and relationships.

Everything we post on social media from pictures to snippets of lyrics gives us a glimpse into our inner person and our outer person, including where we are physically at any time. In fact, many people have actually been arrested because they posted where they were on Facebook or Twitter right after committing a crime or because they filmed themselves doing something illegal and then posted it. What makes these people think they can post something so stupid on social media? It’s quite simple.

Social media promotes oversharing and under-thinking.

No, I didn’t just knock the Scentsy wax all over the bathroom wall because I was dancing to “Shake it Off.” #thatwouldbestupid #TS1989

— Noel Diem (@NoelDiem) November 2, 2014

Who is Oversharing?

Pamela Paul at The New York Times seems to sum up most feelings about social media:

“UNLESS you are my best friend or my husband, I don’t need to know the macabre symptoms of your gastrointestinal virus. I don’t need to know about how much candy anyone, other than me, has eaten. As for my ex-boyfriend, I don’t need to hear about his wife’s ability to Zumba.”

Walking through the park, grocery shopping, or grabbing your coffee at Starbucks can undoubtedly include social interactions; however, there is rarely a time when waiting for your laundry to finish up in the dryer in the laundry room you start spouting unsolicited updates to someone else in the room, no matter how close you may be. Certainly there are people who are oversharers in real life, but they don’t comprise a large portion of the population.

On social media, however, oversharing seems to be the norm. It’s difficult to figure out why we share everything on social media — is there something about those white boxes that we think won’t judge us? Is there a cleansing feeling when you share something somewhat embarrassing? Do we think someone will find us alluring when we share something completely private about our lives? Just recently we discussed the legal implications of social media when criminals reveal themselves to law enforcement — but is there a rhyme or reason to why we share completely strange information about our daily lives on social media but wouldn’t dare utter it at the dinner table?

Psychology Behind Oversharing

Sharing our private thoughts, feelings, and opinions with others in a non-threatening way actually activates the neurochemical reward system in our brains, according to a Harvard University study. In essence, sharing something simple on social media makes us feel good, much like buying a new pair or shoes, taking a long run, or going on a really great first date.

But more interesting is the report of Elizabeth Bernstein in the Wall Street Journal when she declared that our desire for more people to know about our private lives is actually because of reality TV and our own social anxieties.

“This effort is known as ‘self-regulation’ and here is how it works … When having a conversation, we can use up a lot of mental energy trying to manage the other person’s impression of us. We try to look smart, witty, and interesting, but the effort required to do this leaves less brain power to filter what we say and to whom.”

While our brains reward us for oversharing on Facebook, that still doesn’t necessarily explain why we expose sometimes embarrassing or harmful information about ourselves on social media.

Why Do We Overshare?

Professor Russell W. Belk from York University in Toronto took on this topic in his paper “Extended Self in a Digital World.” He suggests that we are not truly ourselves on social media, but rather trying to portray ourselves as more “perfect” forms of ourselves by filtering what we allow people to see. We do this to impress one person, a group of people, or even confuse ourselves about who we truly are.

“When we’re looking at the screen we’re not face-to-face with someone who can immediately respond to us, so it’s easier to let it all out—it’s almost like we’re invisible,” says Belk of the “disinhibition effect” that online sharing helps promote. “The irony is that rather than just one person, there’s potentially thousands or hundreds of thousands of people receiving what we put out there.”

Belk’s observations are confirmed in another study by Gwendolyn Seidman of Albright College and published in Computers in Human Behavior. She examines how people use Facebook to express their “true selves” in a way they normally wouldn’t be able to in real life.

But re-pinning something about a workout we will never do, altering our selfies with four or five different filters, or rating a book on Goodreads that we didn’t actually read isn’t harming anyone, right? Not so fast, Belk asserts that there are potential harms:

“The resulting disinhibition leads many to conclude that they are able to express their “true self” better online than they ever could in face-to-face contexts. This does not mean that there is a fixed ‘true self’ or that the self is anything other than a work in progress, but apparently self-revelation can be therapeutic, at least with the aid of self-reflexive applications.”

Oversharing Can Be Good

Many argue that social media can take the place of a Confessional in our lives — we can truly figure out who we are by revealing our innermost secrets to the general public.  Belk believes that through this we may be expressing our true selves because we are creating ourselves as we post, like, and share:

“It appears that we now do a large amount of our identity work online. For the Internet constantly asks us “Who are You?” “What do you have to share?” Coupled with new self-revealing proclivities, this incites more open self-extension than in a pre-digital world.”

Many view social media as a way to collaborate and receive confirmation of our feelings. Getting likes on a photo on Instagram affirms our skills as a photographer but also of the thing photographed — typically ourselves. A like on Facebook has taken the place of a “ditto” in real life. We are no longer working alone to create our reality, but are forming it from our relationships with people on social media — those we know, and those we don’t know, as is the case with some social media websites like Tumblr.

We also have to take into consideration that perhaps people aren’t oversharing at all — maybe we have just grown sensitive to knowing all of that information all of the time. We share an awful lot as a society, and maybe it is just how accessible that information is.

In fact, as Jen Doll notes at the Wire, “[N]o one gets criticized specifically for undersharing. No one says that word. People just say ‘boring.’”

Conclusion

You can’t just say that people are oversharing without setting a limit for what is the right amount of sharing. We have more capabilities at our fingertips to understand the people in our lives. That same website that allows you to “meet” your roommate’s girlfriend without ever seeing in her person and make a snap judgment on whether or not she’s worthy is the same website where you will have to read details of someone’s food poisoning.

Belk summed it up — we are creating our identities through our oversharing. Maybe not just our identity as singular people, but our identities as a generation.

Resources

Primary

Computers in Human Behavior: Expressing the “True Self” on Facebook

Bankrate: Oversharing on Social Media Can Cost You

Additional

Huffington Post: Oversharing: Why We Do It and How Do We Stop?

Bankrate: Oversharing on Social Media Can Cost You

The New York Times: Don’t Tell Me, I Don’t Want to Know

Atlantic: The Selfish Meme

CNN: When Oversharing Online Can Get You Arrested

Law Street Media: Social Media in the Courtroom: What is Admissible?

The New York Times: Social Media, a Trove of Clues and Confessions

Wire: In Defense of Oversharing a Little Too Much Information

Huffington Post: Are You Oversharing on Social Media?

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Social Media Oversharing: Why Do We Do It? appeared first on Law Street.

Uncle Ben warned Spider-Man, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Our social network activity similarly generates limitless potential and mammoth responsibilities. Besides bridging the gap between cultures, social media offers both unexplored terrain and worrisome perils from a legal persepctive.

Facebook provides a “check in” option, which discloses not only your location but also how far away you are and where you’ve been lately. Snapchat allows a user to share a photo with another user and then have that photo disintegrate into cyberspace. These alternate realms of reality allow people to show who they think they are and who they want you to think they are. The metes and bounds descriptions of our cyber property interests are blurred. But to what extent? Until now, the judiciary seemed ill-equipped to deal with issues presented when someone was charged and later convicted based on information — photos, comments, public statements — shared virtually. Should a defendant’s social media presence be admitted into evidence? Read on and find out.

Social Media in the Courtroom

Inquiring into evidentiary issues requires a snapshot of criminal procedure jurisprudence. There are certain advantages and good policy reasons for accessing social media evidence used in criminal proceedings. Photos, for example, can be uploaded quickly and shared within seconds. They can alert authorities to crimes in progress, those about to be committed, or those already commissioned. Moreover, Police Departments now manage Twitter accounts, which highlight their day-to-day victories, reminding citizens to trust that they are on patrol. But when did these technologies become social norms? We all want to be protected, but at what cost?

When did technology become an issue in criminal proceedings?

Until recently, the government consistently retrieved any information from third parties without a neutral and detached magistrate issuing a warrant. The groundbreaking decree came in 1971 when the Supreme Court decided that recording conversations between an individual and agents, via a radio transmitter and without a warrant, did not violate the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, this was decided in a time when social media didn’t exist, or at least where speaking face to face was not uncommon:

Social media use in the United States alone has increased by 356 percent since 2006. Currently, 52 percent of Americans have at least one social media profile more than one billion people use Facebook actively each month, and Twitter has over 140 million active users posting 340 million Tweets a day.

Every minute, social media users create massive amounts of data: Facebook users share 684,478 pieces of content; Tumblr blog owners publish 27,778 new posts; YouTube users upload 48 hours of new video; Foursquare users perform 2,083 check-ins; Flickr users add 3,125 new photos, and Instagram users share 3,600 new photos. In addition, there are hundreds of other social networking websites, each catering to a different demographic.

Recent Changes

With new ideologies come new rules to constrain them. The Supreme Court tackled the technology and privacy issues head on after wrestling with Riley v. California, after a defendant’s phone was searched without a warrant. In Riley, the Defendant was stopped for a traffic violation, which resulted in his arrest. Upon searching the defendant pursuant to the incident to arrest exception for searches, the police officers removed his phone from his pants pocket. Based on photos and videos found within the phone, the state sought an enhanced sentence for gang association. The Supreme Court Majority had this to say:

The Court did not uphold the warrantless search of Riley’s cell phone; however, the Court was reluctant in transcribing a per se rule, and instead recognized circumstances in which data retrieved from a cell phone would be necessary to combat an unforeseen exigency. Thus, although the incident to an arrest exception would not suffice for searches of a defendant’s cell phone, the Court reserved its discretion as judicial intermediary.

I imagine lawyers will soon use the rules to their advantage and argue that individuals “checking in” to locations on sites such as Foursquare are not hearsay but “present sense impressions,” and that tweets are admissible under the “state of mind” exception.

Not all Courts treat this type of evidence the same way, however. In Miles v. Raycom Media, the Court found that a Facebook page containing unsworn statements from third parties that were offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted constituted inadmissible hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801. Thus, the court restricted the scope of Facebook profile admissibility.

On the one hand, we are presented with judges who may not understand the significance of our social network privacies and the public diaries we divulge. On the other we have judges willing to apply (make) exceptions to what we post, which they use to incriminate us later. I say “us” because it is our online activities and trends that shape these realities.

Social Policies

As we can see, courts are conflicted as to whether admitting this evidence upholds our notions of truth, justice, and fairness. It’s a cycle. First, our social network activity creates criminal proceedings because defendants also use social networks. These proceedings then generate different approaches in judges handling evidence issues. Finally, these issues lead back to defendants, which prompts changes to our social networking habits after we notice our information is no longer private. Meanwhile, the people play pawns: citizens lose privacy and people get arrested. Nevertheless, Snapchat offers grounds for alarming disagreement, debate, and policy.

Snapchat lets people share secret photos with one another, which disappear upon the recipient’s retrieval. It makes sense that a defendant may want to broadcast his new kill or fashion his new stolen watch. Using Snapchat, he can send a picture to his gang or girlfriend, showcasing that he pulled it off.

Show-offs never get away with it. In fact, when you join Snapchat, you authorize it to “process and store” the nature of your contents. So while you think the picture of that hot new bathing suit you stole and sent your boyfriend won’t be found, it’s actually being saved. Moreover, Snapchat’s policy provides that:

We may share information about you as follows or as otherwise described in this Privacy Policy:

• In response to legal process or a request for information if we believe disclosure is in accordance with any applicable law, rule, or regulation, or as otherwise required by any applicable law, rule or regulation;
• In order to investigate or remedy potential violations of our user agreements or policies, or to protect the rights, property and safety of Snapchat, our users or others;
• In connection with, or during negotiations of, any merger, sale of company assets, financing or acquisition of all or a portion of our business to another company; and
• With your consent or at your direction.

Conclusion

Many people join Snapchat because they can send and receive photos and videos that they don’t want others to see. Although we already submit some of our privacy to online networks when we subscribe, if Congress statutorily enacts that any posts on social media can be used as evidence, then people would be deterred from joining the sites in the first place. This could limit the amount of people sharing dumb photos or implicating themselves. Juxtaposed, a statute like this could offer broader criminal tactics, or it could prevent defendants from implicating themselves. A lot of Snapchat and social media in general is based on our heightened expectations that what we do, send, or comment on, won’t be available for use against us. Alternatively, what we do, send, or comment on, is nevertheless saved in case something happens. Is that fair? Perhaps social media giants operating under the false pretenses of security should be exposed once and for all.

Resources

Primary

Snapchat: Privacy Policy

EFF: The Stored Communications Act

Additional

Bloomberg BNA: Social Media Evidence in Criminal Proceedings

American Bar Association: Admissibility of Social Media Evidence

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Social Media in the Courtroom: What is Admissible? appeared first on Law Street.

Sign into your Facebook or Twitter at any time and you will see YouTube video after YouTube Video that promotes some sort of political message — from feminist videos about reclaiming our bodies to videos from those in support of the Second Amendment. These videos are increasingly effective and everyone is capitalizing on the immense word-of-mouth profitability that can come from a simple “like” or “share” on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or Tumblr.

What used to be a playground for grassroots campaigns is now a major part of marketing for non-profits, politicians, and everyone in between. Still, the question remains – are they working? Are we going too far? Is this the future of marketing for everything?

Why YouTube?

YouTube is the major platform for these videos, and they then go through other social media blogs and eventually end up on your phone, tablet, or laptop, where you no doubt see it from your aunts, friends, or professors.

According to the Kissmetrics Marketing Blog, more than 700 hundred videos are shared every minute on Twitter alone. Sure, a great deal of those are cat videos, cover performances, or someone dancing – but many of them are also videos that have the intent to promote social change.

Hunter Walk, YouTube’s Director of Product Management, spoke with Forbes magazine to explain the YouTube for Good team, an initiative formed nearly three years ago to make the video-sharing site more useful to activists, educators, and nonprofits, along with the ways in which the site, popular vloggers, and others can change popular public perception about YouTube from an entertainment source to an important resource in social change.

“We want YouTube to be a platform where advocacy, education and free expression live,” Walk told reporter Rahim Kanani. “Rather than have a small group of employees dedicated to philanthropy or social innovation, we want employees to think about building ‘good’ into everything we do, like making sure a new product designed for an individual user also works well for a nonprofit.”

YouTube reaches a massive number of people from ages in all areas of the country through the website itself and the subsequent social media shares. The videos seem to have a larger impact on creating actionable feelings — or instilling the thought that someone must donate, sign a petition, share the content, change their behaviors, and/or talk to politicians among other actions — than other forms of online marketing, articles, banners, ads, or hashtags.

FCKH8

Some of the most infamous social change videos come from the FCKH8 company. Its brand of social change is vulgar, in your face, and somewhat controversial. While the apparel company started with tackling homophobia, it has since gone toe-to-toe with racism and sexism. Its most recent video takes aim at the pay gap, sexual abuse, and gender roles – all things that need to be discussed. However, the way it tackled the subject — using young girls dressed as princesses engaged in f-bomb filled rants — has caused some to question whether these subjects are as damaging to their minds as the topic at hand. For sure, this isn’t a video for everyone:

“What’s more offensive?” FCKH8 asks. “A little girl saying f***, or the sexist way society treats girls and women?” But many people are asking: What’s more offensive: The way society treats women, or children dropping f-bombs according to a script, written by adults to sell T-shirts?

Karin Agnes at Time blasts the video, saying: “The problem is that this FCKH8 effort isn’t an outlier in feminism in America today. Comedian Sarah Silverman starred in a video as a woman who decided to get a sex change operation because she would supposedly get paid more as a man. What? This was an effort to raise money for the National Women’s Law Center, which ‘has worked for 40 years to expand, protect, and promote opportunity and advancement for women and girls at every stage of their lives—from education to employment to retirement security, and everything in between.’ Maybe this silly ad helped them raise money, but wouldn’t a serious attempt have been better for women?”

Online news source Sp!ked takes aim at the adults behind the video, asserting that “this just isn’t the way adults are supposed to act.” According to Jezebel, this isn’t the company’s first time in hot water — it recently went through a similar fight when it took on the topic of Ferguson in a “Hey White People!” video.

Laci Green

Sometimes it isn’t a company or a political group that is trying to incite social change, but rather a single person trying to change minds one at a time. Laci Green is a popular vlogger who talks about it all: equality, feminism, sex, consent, relationships, to name only a few topics. While the production value isn’t high and the set designs aren’t immense (in fact, the videos are usually filmed in her apartment), her words cut deeper, ring truer, and stay longer because of it – she truly seems like “one of us.”

Green has a frank style – she is going to tell you what she thinks, she’s going to back it up with facts, and she’s going to take you on headfirst if she feels like she needs to. Green was one of the major YouTubers who stood up for the victims of fellow YouTuber Sam Pepper who was accused of various cases of sexual harassment. But instead of just using it as a way to get viewers, she used it as a learning moment for her viewers and another way to discuss consent, feminism, and personal rights.

Green is a fan favorite of more than 1,000,000 subscribers. Her Sex+ channel started small, but has made an impact that runs deep through the community and with her fans. She may not scream as loud or offend as many along the way, but her steps toward social change are precisely calculated, never flinching, and growing stronger.

It Gets Better

One of the most widespread campaigns on YouTube has been the It Gets Better Project, the mission of which is to communicate to LGBTQ youth around the world that the future will get better, and that they need to band together to inspire those changes needed so that the world will get increasingly better.

From the It Gets Better Website:

“The It Gets Better Project has become a worldwide movement, inspiring more than 50,000 user-created videos viewed more than 50 million times. To date, the project has received submissions from celebrities, organizations, activists, politicians and media personalities, including President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Adam Lambert, Anne Hathaway, Colin Farrell, Matthew Morrison of “Glee”, Joe Jonas, Joel Madden, Ke$ha, Sarah Silverman, Tim Gunn, Ellen DeGeneres, Suze Orman, the staffs of The Gap, Google, Facebook, Pixar, the Broadway community, and many more. For us, every video changes a life. It doesn’t matter who makes it.”

The channel also has many fan-made entries of “real” people who have overcome issues and gone on to live happy, full lives. One extremely touching video comes from Google, where Woody from “Toy Story” tells us, “You’ll be fine, Partner.” For many, it was a Kleenex-inducing moment, but for others, it seemed too much.

One man told the Christian Post that “he was surprised and disappointed that they would use a children’s character for the project,” citing that “endorsing something that at this point children have no need to know about, it’s disappointing.”

Speaking Out Against YouTube Videos

Shortly after the FCKH8 video featuring young girls swearing debuted, it was taken down by YouTube because it violated the company’s terms and conditions. Though it was quickly reinstated, the question remains: how far is too far? With many videos never receiving more than a handful of reviews, it takes more than luck to get attention. There is even a Tumblr dedicated to stopping the company: StopFCKH8.tumblr.com, which makes multiple assertions as to why the company is “bad” for the people it is supposed to represent.

There is also a portion of the population that lives to “troll” or attack the comments, subscribers, and actual performers of these videos. Laci Green recently had an altercation with a man on Twitter in which she was called “sensitive.” The same happens in some of the comments of her videos, people coming in to personally attack both Laci and the people who comment on her videos. The comments section of anything on the internet can attract negativity, but these videos seem to draw even more people in — so what can we do? For certain, young girls, for example, having their beliefs used against them can have negative results. Still, it doesn’t make sense for uploaders to have to continually monitor comments on hundreds of videos; nor does it make sense to not have a comments section at all.

Do the negatives outweigh the positives?

Speak Out for YouTube Videos

YouTube has the undeniable power to unite forces, especially younger audiences, and the shift toward using that power for good is promising. According to Media for Social Change, “Now that YouTube Channels are slowly taking the place of the television channel, it’s become more easy than ever before for changemakers like us to put our message in front of more people. No need to woo the gatekeepers, or pay thousands of dollars in advertising dollars. No need to compete with the big boys with big resources for airtime that’s limited.” By using the platform as a source of both entertainment and inspiration, and sometimes blurring the lines between the two, YouTubers are on the cusp of a social revolution.

The responses from the various projects have been nothing short of remarkable. The It Gets Better Project has grown from a buzzworthy series of videos into an inspirational mantra for youth. They are taking famous faces and connecting them to the change, sharing the positives and the negatives, no longer hiding behind fake smiles and gimmicky stories. Laci Green has become a strong backbone for many — including young people who reach out to her for advice, support, and a shoulder to cry on.

Conclusion

In addition to the videos mentioned, there are thousands of others produced to promote social change. Many of them are not as popular as the ones that have gone viral. Many of the ones that have gone viral have done so not for the best of reasons; instead of the message being celebrated, they are reviled for the content or mocked mercilessly in parody videos.

So is there a limit to what we can do on YouTube, or should we continue pushing through the censorship and keep creating content that is available at the click of a button?

Resources

Shareable: 10 Viral Videos for Social Change – Sharable

The Point with Ana Kasparian: Can Social Media Drive Social Change?

Media for Social Change: Changemakers

Kissmetrics: The 2013 YouTube Marketing Guide

Spiked Online: The Fairytale Feminism of FCKH8

Jezebel: Little Girls Cussing For Feminism Would Be Great if it Weren’t an Ad 

It Gets Better: About the Project

Guardian: Sarah Silverman Sparks Row With ‘Sex Change’ Equal Pay Video

Stop FCKH8: FCKH8 Needs to Stop

Media for Social Change: 5 Top YouTube Channels Doing Good

Forbes: Why YouTube is the Ultimate Platform for Global Social Change

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post YouTube for Social Change: Can Improving the World go Viral? appeared first on Law Street.

Hello, ello. As someone who grew up in the generation of social networks, it’s quite remarkable to see how in a little less than a decade we’ve come almost full circle. In the early 2000s, social networks revolutionized the ways in which we communicated. But back to the full circle part — these social networks, particularly Facebook, have become such a norm that there’s plenty of people who dislike the commercialization, lack of creativity, and ubiquitousness of Facebook. In that context, a new social network has joined the scene, trying to capitalize on some of Facebook’s disappointed customer base. It’s called “Ello” and it appears to have a lot of potential.

Ello’s tagline appears to be “Simple, Beautiful, and Ad-Free.” The interface is simple, as vintage as one can go in a world where the internet is still too young to be truly vintage. Ello’s “About Us” section spells out what it’s for. Important priorities appear to include that Ello is invite-only, it does not contain ads, it’s simple and uncluttered, and it does not sell user information. As Ello puts it:

Virtually every other social network is run by advertisers. Behind the scenes they employ armies of ad salesmen and data miners to record every move you make. Data about you is then auctioned off to advertisers and data brokers. You’re the product that’s being bought and sold.

Recently, Ello took another step further. It is now what’s called a “Public Benefit Corporation.” That means that they cannot:

1. Sell user-specific data to a third party;
2. Enter into an agreement to display paid advertising on behalf of a third party; and
3. In the event of an acquisition or asset transfer, the Company shall require any acquiring entity to adopt these requirements with respect to the operation of Ello or its assets.

So, how will Ello make money? If it doesn’t have advertisers, and it doesn’t sell data, how is it able to profit? As idealistic and great as Ello sounds, the people who created it can’t just bankrupt themselves in the name of a more ethical social network.

Well, right now it apparently has a few venture capitalists behind it, which will keep the company flush while it gets off the ground. According to Ello, it’s going to have people pay for more premium services. Ello compared it to an iPhone — you buy an iPhone and then you customize it the way you want. You can purchase apps and other features to customize the iPhone to be exactly what you want.

The big question is will people take the same approach to Ello? Millennials love customization, to be sure, but we’re also incredibly cheap. If we have the option for a free social network like Facebook, will anyone pay a little more for the ad-free experience of Ello? Maybe, especially when the network is new and hip, but once it goes the route of Facebook and attracts pretty much the entire world, will people be willing to fork up the dough?

Ello is a tantalizing concept — an anti-Facebook. But I just don’t know if people are frustrated enough with Facebook to need its social media foil yet, especially if it’s going to cost them.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Mozart via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ello, Goodbye? appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier today, I was fortunate enough to watch and listen to a webinar hosted by the Chief Strategy Officer of Mashable.com, Adam Ostrow. The webinar, hosted at the American Association of Publishers, focused on how Mashable has been so successful, so quickly, in the online media field, and Ostrow’s insights were incredibly enlightening.

Mashable has been around for less than 10 years–it was launched in 2005 by a young Scottish man named Pete Cashmore. It began as a classic low-funded start-up. Its employees worked virtually, and given time differences between the U.S. and the U.K. were able to present content almost 24/7. Now, Mashable is well recognized as a force to be reckoned with in the online arena. According to Ostrow’s presentation today, some sort of Mashable content is now shared an average of three times per second.

Ostrow’s focus today was to explain how they got there–what sort of ingenuity and creative thinking was required to turn Mashable into such a viral phenomenon. A lot of it involved Mashable’s ability to utilize the digital culture that is becoming increasingly pervasive in American society, especially among young people. As Ostrow put it:

It's 2014, "#digital culture IS mainstream culture" @mashable @adamostrow @PSP_at_AAP

— Law Street (@LawStreetMedia) October 10, 2014

He’s absolutely right–we are more connected than we ever were before. We work, socialize, and interact constantly through our smart phones and social networks–why shouldn’t we get our news and other desired content the exact same way?

That’s exactly what Mashable thought too, and it’s worked. In 2014, roughly 50 percent of their users have accessed the site through mobile technology. On another interesting note, 50 percent also get to the site through some sort of social media platform. While those numbers are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they are telling. As a millennial, they’re almost directly representative of how I got a large chunk of my news–scrolling through my Twitter feed on my phone.

That brings us to another important part of Ostrow’s presentation–Mashable got into the market by taking advantage of changes in the media world, but they also realized they would be remiss to not stay abreast of changes that continue to happen. Ostrow highlighted a few–things like smartwatches are starting to become legitimate considerations, for example. One thing that really struck me was the fact that Mashable has a a position entitled “Dedicated Snapchat Storyteller.” That’s incredible, given that Snapchat was just released in 2011. So much of today’s society moves so quickly–our media sites are smart to jump on trends and incorporate them into their business models.

So Mashable is very successful, to be sure…but how do they make their money? That was another part of Ostrow’s presentation, and like Mashable in general, their money-making strategy was something that we probably wouldn’t have even known about just a short time ago. It’s called native advertising, or sponsored content, and it’s a model that is becoming increasingly popular on the web. There are a few different ways to do it, but essentially what it means is that a particular advertiser provides content that fits into the context of the site, in the form of blogs or articles, or some other platform. In the case of Mashable, some of their sponsored content partners include American Express, Staples, and Gap, among others. Like the rest of what Mashable is doing, sponsored content is smart because it tailors itself to what we, as millennials want. Smart content with context appeals way more to us than print ads, or even classic advertisements.

Overall, it was an incredibly interesting presentation–if you’re looking for more coverage, make sure to check out the Law Street Media Twitter feed. Mashable’s innovation is impressive, and their insights equally so.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Coghlan via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mashable is Changing the Way Media Works appeared first on Law Street.

The advent of social media networks introduced endless applications, opportunities, and hundred of thousands of attention-seeking men and women searching for that new fix, that something different. Nowadays, with television shows broadcasting adulterous affairs and advertisements screaming sex, one questions whether the provocateur’s nature is encouraged in the United States. Read on to learn about the ways in which our society addresses, promotes, and deals with adulterous behavior.

Is it just me, or is sex everywhere?

From Showtime’s hit show “Masters of Sex”, to the “Game of Thrones” saga on HBO, nudity and passion play on our society’s imagination. Scandal reigns supreme in the monotonous lifestyle of working, paying taxes, and drinking endless Iced Venti Americanos. No one will openly condone cheating, but infidelity is pervasive; it’s something that’s constantly talked about in modern society.

In 2010, the National Opinion Research Center inquired into the percentage of men and women cheating on their spouses. The percentage of men involved in extramarital affairs remained steady, around 21.6 percent. However, the infidelity rate amongst married women rose to about 14.7 percent. This jump was attributed to more women joining the workforce and obtaining jobs requiring them to travel.

But why shift any blame? Perhaps allocating responsibility isn’t a working testament to the truth about infidelity. Maybe people just get tired of each other and hope for a change. Gary Neuman quantified his studies of adulterous men in his book “The Truth About Cheating” in 2008. He provided that about 1 in 2.7 men cheat on their wives. He blamed male insecurity.

The majority said it was an emotional disconnection, specifically a sense of feeling under-appreciated. A lack of thoughtful gestures. Men are very emotional beings. They just don’t look like that. Or they don’t seem like that. Or they don’t tell you that.

But is the driving force behind adulterous men purely insecurity driven? And can a woman’s indiscretions be explained by working more, or in different places? That may have once been the case; however, in modern years, our marriage discussions have shifted from treating bedrooms sacredly, to coffee-shop chit-chat and salon banter. Perhaps you’ve never witnessed it, or don’t frequent barbershops and Starbucks, but, what if George Clooney in “Out of Sight” was right? What if that moment passing someone on the street transforms wayward thoughts into scandalous realities?

Is infidelity easier today?

It’s 2014, and apps such as OkCupid and Tinder exist. Today, “swiping,” has erased the formal face to face contact typical to traditional relationship notions. With a flick of a finger one can generate an obscene amount of potential lovers, both hopefuls and hopeless prospects. It takes no longer to find someone than the time it takes to inconspicuously avert your eyes from the married neighbor’s wife, after the husband notices you “creeping.”

A simple Google search for “apps for cheating” generates countless articles, magazine excerpts, and ratings of new phone applications easily designed and ranked to help one cloak mischievous manners. Apps like Ashley Madison, SnapChat, and Black SMS, not only encourage infidelity, but make discovering it much more difficult. On the other hand, applications for exposing a cheating spouse, like ThaiSpy and CoupleTracker, make catching one affordable and accessible. Incidentally, the internet provides a tech black market, allowing one to fulfill scandalous desire and retain anonymity. Is it really a surprise, that Millennials, thrust into technology’s embrace, are showing symptoms of a swelling infidelity rate? Technology has injected itself into the relationship process, and it shows no signs of stalling. For example, a new survey published by IBISWorld, a Santa Monica market research firm, discussed the implications of mobile dating, yielding that approximately one third of new marriages start online.

Societally, we are going to increasingly meet more of our romantic partners online as we establish more of an online presence in terms of social media,” says Caitlin Moldvay, a dating industry senior analyst for IBISWorld in Santa Monica, Calif. “I do think mobile dating is going to be the main driver of this growth.

But, what does this have to do with infidelity? Perhaps, not much at all, but could the way people meet and explore their sexual inclinations dictate modern cultural trends? If meeting Casanova becomes easier, is it easier to cheat? That could make sense.

Contrarily, research conducted by Michael Rosenfeld, a sociologist at Stanford University, rebuts this presumption. In his independent study published in the American Sociological Review, he found that 22 percent of new couples met online; however, these couples were twice as likely to marry as those who met offline.

 Couples who meet online are more likely to progress to marriage than couples who meet in other ways.

He explained this phenomenon by pointing out that dating sites typically arouse interest in people genuinely seeking marriage as their goal. Although his results seem noble, they remain dubious because internet-formed relationships are still in their infancy stages. Delving deeper into research shows that infidelity mostly occurs after 5-7 years of the marriage or when a child was born. Therefore, although online couples are initially happier, studying their long term speculations may be premature, considering the relative new-ness of social media and online dating. Nevertheless, both ideas suggest that taking a look into our nation’s divorce rate may shed some light on the issue.

Is infidelity the reason behind our surging divorce rate?

Statisticians rank the United States as having the sixth most divorces in the world. Although the specific divorce rate is relatively unknown, it is speculated that around 40-50 percent of all marriages end in divorce. However, this statistic does not account for the complexities surrounding marital difficulties. For example, the largest rate of divorcing men and women are between the ages of 20-24–37 percent for women, and 39 percent for men:

“f you just ask whether infidelity is going up, you don’t see really impressive changes. But if you magnify the picture and you start looking at specific gender and age cohorts, we do start to see some pretty significant changes.

David C. Atkins, an associate research  professor at the University of Washington Center for the Study of Health and Risk Behaviors, studied the infidelity rate among married couples and discovered that although the divorce rate has not risen significantly, particular age groups, including newly married couples and couples over 60, are cheating more often. He cites the availability of pornography on the Internet as a motivator for younger couples, and the prevalence of remedies treating erectile dysfunction for older couples. Moreover, the modern trend deemphasizes sex as the primary driving force of infidelity. Instead, intimacy and openness with one’s new flame boosts the infidelity rate. This idea was qualified this year in a new study published in a journal, Evolutionary Psychology, which recruited 477 adults: 238 men and 239 women. The study asked all participants two questions:

Which would distress you more: Imagining your partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with another person or imagining your partner forming a deep emotional attachment with another person?

Interestingly the results varied, depending on who you asked. Men were most distraught about physical infidelity and women by emotional cheating. Thus, examining all the reports above presents us with a trend that shows a possible gender-specific irony: 1) Men do not always appreciate a spouse’s physical infidelity; however, men usually cheat due to emotional insecurity, and 2) Women do not  always appreciate a spouse’s emotional attachment, but can be attracted to a man’s sexual prowess. Although, our nation’s mushrooming divorce rate isn’t directly attributable to infidelity alone, a question remains as to why infidelity is so ubiquitous today.

What effects do social networks have on infidelity?

Today, we are constantly connected. Many people maintain activity on one or more social networks or maintain “friends,” many of whom they haven’t spoken to in years: friends, exes, people they don’t know, or people they would like to know. Face to face relationships are no longer as mainstream as they used to be. But what role does our ability to connect with people from all over the world play in expansive relationship betrayal?

Researchers at Indiana University studied the connection between social networks and relationship availability. The study coined the term “digital cheating” and investigates suspicions about relationship demise by social networks. It found that people keep Facebook and other outlets to monitor the availability of their romantic/sexual prospects and whether or not they are in a committed relationships. Their breakthrough suggests that modern networking trends illustrate adults breaking from meeting new people, and instead, holding on to old flames, or as they called them, “Back-Burners.” As the study explains:

We use the term back burner to describe a desired potential or continuing romantic/sexual partner with whom one communicates, but to whom one is not exclusively committed. Although communication with back burners is not new, modern technology affords novel channels (e.g., social networking applications and text messaging) that individuals are using to connect with back burners.

Additionally, the study found that some partners in adult relationships maintain romantic or sexual conversations, on average, with two people other than their significant other. Interestingly, this trend is gender neutral, resulting in a similar average rate for both men and women. Although the larger pool of prospects and digital back-and-forth are not necessarily dispositive of physical wrongdoing, these findings lend credence to the English idiom that there really are plenty of fish in the sea.

Conclusion

Perhaps the loyal spouse today shouldn’t blame his or her philandering partner. Modern philosophies describing today’s adultery clash with old-school promiscuity notions, which ascribe different reasons for extramarital affairs. Maybe infidelity by one spouse is just a byproduct of emotional yearning. Although cheating compromises the values of one spouse at the expense of another’s selfishness, our society mimics this trend by condoning infidelity for some, while celebrating it for others.  For example, our infamous double-standard provides that philandering men will mostly receive “props” from their “boys,” while unfaithful women are labeled with the love chords of revulsion. Even though both sexes may be equally guilty in entertaining back-burners for that just-in-case moment, it seems unfair to brand one sex with the Scarlet Letter celebrated by the other. Nevertheless, the problem might not lie between or among the sexes, considering this issue permeates every facet of modern life, such as our phones, homes, and television shows. Maybe it has now just become a part of today’s life.

Resources

USA Today: Study: More Than a Third of New Marriages Start Online

Computers in Human Behavior: Using Modern Technology to Keep in Touch With Back Burners

Evolutionary Psychology: Explaining Sex Differences in Reactions to Relationship Infidelities

Bloomberg: More U.S. Women Report Cheating on Their Spouses

Infidelity Facts: When Does Infidelity Occur?

Huffington Post: Why People Cheat: 12 Differences Between men and Women

CNN: Besides Sex–Other Reasons Men Cheat

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Infidelity in the United States: Why is the Trend Growing? appeared first on Law Street.

With the next LSAT just over a week away, 1Ls settling into that special experience we call law school, and clients wanting selfies in court, this turned out to be a great week in the world of funny legal tweets. Check out this week’s best, and then head over to #300Voices and discover the top accounts to follow for all things law and policy.

[SlideDeck2 id=25077 ress=1]

—

Chelsey Goff (@cddg) is Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University in DC. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at cgoff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Garrett Heath via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, commonly referred to as ISIS, has been making some interesting moves lately. Namely it’s gotten into the movie business.

Last night, ISIS released a video “warning” the United States about what would happen if we send troops to Iraq to combat its growing influence. The graphic video is below, should you be inclined to watch it.

For those of you who choose to skip over the video, here’s a brief summary. The beginning features a lot of gratuitous explosions, eventually it shows American soldiers struggling, then we get treated to some fuzzy shots of the White House. Eventually, the “title” of the movie flashes on the screen: “Flames of War: The Fight Has Just Begun” and then the words “Coming Soon.”

This is, of course, just a few weeks after ISIS released videos depicting the slaughters of American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff.

Terrorism is a very difficult thing to define — there are still academic arguments over how exactly to delineate terrorist groups from other actors. But at its most basic form, terrorism does have to include some kind of “terror” — that’s the whole point. It often targets non-combatants, such as civilians. It’s often, but not always, aimed at democracies where the members of the democracy have the ability to appeal to their government. ISIS did not kill James Foley because it wanted him to die, it killed James Foley in an attempt to incite “terror” in the American public. That’s all the intent it needed right there. Again, this is not meant to serve by any means as any sort of dispositive definition, but more as context for my next statement: the video released last night by ISIS was downright brilliant.

The whole point of terror is to scare, intimidate, and coerce. And with that trailer, ISIS was able to do just that, at minimal cost. It didn’t break any laws, it didn’t kill anyone, it didn’t have to go on a violent campaign. ISIS literally had a couple guys with decent computer skills sit there and do that, and then leaked it to the internet. While one could argue that it wasn’t a terroristic act in the strictest sense, it was certainly a facet of a larger campaign. ISIS has figured out how to reach as many people in its goal audience as possible. It’s literally creating clickbait for social media. Not to be glib about the fact that ISIS is one of the largest terrorist threats to the U.S. right now, but it’s literally employing Buzzfeed-like tactics to scare the American populace. And, the scariest part is that it seems to be working.

ISIS hasn’t just mastered social media when it comes to releasing creepy videos, it’s also using it in other ways. It’s created message boards and chat rooms for recruiting purposes, including in the United States. Given that a handful of western-born fighters are known to be among ISIS’ ranks, the kind of access it has is scary. It’s also dipped into other tactics that seem to be more out of a business/PR handbook than a terrorist group’s goals, including an online store that sells clothing and memorabilia.

ISIS knows what it has to work with, and its tactics are scarily modern. The group sort of flies in the face of what I think many people think of when they think of “terrorist.” Many in the U.S. see terrorists as radical, backward people. And don’t get me wrong, ISIS is beyond radicalized. But much more concerning than its radicalization is that it’s alarming modern. As the United States continues to develop its plan to work against ISIS, we need to keep that in mind.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Nile Livesey via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Coming Soon to Theaters Near You: ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat quietly settled a lawsuit last week with Reggie Brown, a supposed original co-founder of the popular social media app. Brown claimed in his suit that he was the one who came up for the idea for the app in the first place, but was kicked out of group before it was released.

Snapchat said in a statement on September 9th that CEO Evan Spiegel and Chief Technology Officer Robert Murphy had resolved their dispute with Brown and confirmed his claims:

Reggie Brown originally came up with the idea of creating an application for sending disappearing picture messages while he was a student at Stanford University. He then collaborated with Spiegel and Murphy on the development of Snapchat during its early and most formative days.

The settlement marks the first public acknowledgement by Snapchat of its faults after a year-and-a-half legal battle with Brown. In February 2013, Brown claimed that he came up with the idea for an app that lets users send disappearing photos and videos to friends. He said he also came up with the idea for the app’s logo and its original name, “Picaboo.” He said he was ousted from the group by his fraternity brothers, Spiegel and Murphy, and that he rightfully owned one-third of the company. Snapchat denounced Brown’s claims several times and said that they were “utterly devoid of merit.” By settling last week, they changed their position. But Snapchat did keep the terms of the settlement confidential, making it impossible to know whether Brown got his one-third or something else.

Under normal circumstances, Sanpchat’s settlement might spark up a debate about intellectual property and ownership rights. But in this case, that didn’t happen for a couple of reasons. That September 9th date on which Snapchat announced the settlement might ring a bell to people who follow technology news. It was the day of Apple announced its new line of iPhones and the Apple Watch. Snapchat chose to publish its press release on that day at 1 p.m., the exact start time of Apple’s big event, which was the story of the day in the technology news sphere. The Snapchat story was almost completely overshadowed.

The other reason this settlement may not have sparked up a debate is that Snapchat, despite claiming to have 700 million photos and videos sent daily and being valued at an estimated $10 billion, currently does not earn any revenue. The company has already turned down offers from high profile tech giants–$3 billion from Facebook and $4 billion from Google. Without earning any revenue, Brown’s piece of the Snapchat pie currently wouldn’t earn him anything besides name recognition and the potential reward should the company decide to sell.

Snapchat’s dispute with Brown might sound familiar in the social media realm. In 2004, Facebook had a similar debacle–three Harvard University seniors sued CEO Mark Zuckerberg for using their idea for a social network. Facebook settled with them in 2008 for 1.2 million shares of Facebook, which were valued at $300 million during Facebook’s initial public offering.

While we don’t know what settling with Snapchat earned Brown, it does seem to be revealing an easy money-making scheme: introduce an idea for a product or service, wait for someone you know to make it successful, then sue.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Snapchat’s Settled Lawsuit: Another “Social Network” Story? appeared first on Law Street.

Social Media has exploded in recent years as the most popular way for young people to communicate. At the time of a Pew study created in 2012, 95 percent of teens aged 12-17 had access to the Internet. Thirty-seven percent owned some sort of smart phone, and 80 percent had a computer. Eighty-one percent reported regularly using some sort of social media platform. While the specific social media platforms that teens actually use has evolved over the years, it’s clear that using these types of sites to communicate isn’t going away any time soon. Given that students are moving away from the kind of social media that their parents are attracted to, the question is clear: is anyone monitoring what happens on social media sites between teenagers? Read on to learn about the debate, the perspective of schools, and where we currently stand.

Why might schools get involved with student social media use?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teens and Social Media: How do Schools Fit In? appeared first on Law Street.

In case you missed our first post about Rep. John Dingell’s breakout summer on Twitter, you’re in luck! He was just as funny and smart during the August recess, too. It’s been clear for years that all of those congressional reps who haven’t served 30 terms should probably take some cues from the Dean of the House. Who would’ve guessed one of those cues would be on social media?

Looking forward to finding out the next moves of a House that could easily screw up a one car funeral. The inmates are running the asylum.

— John Dingell (@john_dingell) August 1, 2014

For those playing along at home via @cspan, drink every time GOP member references children & “self-deportation” and keeps a straight face. — John Dingell (@john_dingell) August 1, 2014

Just took a “selfie” at the W. Wayne Family Health fair. Glad our young folks are embracing a DIY attitude. #NHCW2014 pic.twitter.com/mBrcTc5kW9

— John Dingell (@john_dingell) August 14, 2014

My commitment to making sure young people stay interested & active in their government? Flawless. pic.twitter.com/zNN4p7Dfg4 — John Dingell (@john_dingell) August 21, 2014

I see no problem with the suit. pic.twitter.com/ZFFt75FedU

— John Dingell (@john_dingell) August 28, 2014

—

Chelsey Goff (@cddg) is Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University in DC. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at cgoff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [John Dingell via Twitter]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post August Recess is No Match for Rep. John Dingell on Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

Every country music fan knows Brad Paisley to be the funny guy. A naked baby photograph serves as his Twitter profile picture and his tweets are often witty wise cracks at fellow country celebs (with Carrie Underwood seemingly a favorite to tease). Paisley’s work is creative and, at times, just plain comical. His song “Online” details the life of a “sci-fi fanatic, mild asthmatic,” Pizza Pit employee who still resides with his parents. You can’t help but chuckle as you sing along to that one.

Paisley’s free spirit didn’t have everyone at Sony Music laughing this month, however. Paisley employed various characters and personalities to help him leak his new album Moonshine in the Trunk. One song at a time, the artist leaked the music with help from people like Ellen DeGeneres, the web-famous Annoying Orange, and a NASA astronaut. Paisley originally announced his intentions over Twitter.

I’m going rogue. The label doesn’t know I’m doing this. Seriously. But I made a Moonshine Preview teaser. Don’t tell. http://t.co/8zZ4obKG4n

— Brad Paisley (@BradPaisley) July 26, 2014

Sony Music Nashville, Paisley’s record label, then sent disconcerted emails to the artist. Paisley promptly took screenshots of those emails and posted them online. Label executives and managers warned that there was a lack of permission for leaks of this sort.

Paisley tweeted this email that he sent to the reps:

I really do love my record label.Especially for puttin’up with my $h@t. But I love ya’ll even more. Ha! Priorities. pic.twitter.com/n8FFzuRNQ1

— Brad Paisley (@BradPaisley) July 26, 2014

Here’s one exchange between Sony and the Grammy Award winning artist:

Let me say: I love recording at Sony. I love my manager, my publicist, my agent. But yes, I’m doing this largely on my own. — Brad Paisley (@BradPaisley) July 30, 2014

Got this from the head of the label.. Seems pretty clear to me. pic.twitter.com/FmwPWRkFj4 — Brad Paisley (@BradPaisley) July 30, 2014

So you heard the man. Promote the song “Moonshine”. Here we go. Buckle up. http://t.co/MG9KUGFIbm

— Brad Paisley (@BradPaisley) July 30, 2014

And then when the label pulled the song off the Internet, Paisley tweeted:

Darn darn darn darn Darny darn darn!!!!!!! — Brad Paisley (@BradPaisley) July 30, 2014

It seems Sony Music Nashville was a good sport about the whole thing, in the end. The label retaliated in good fun, leaking Paisley’s personal email address. Overton admits, “Working with Brad is like riding a roller coaster: you know you’re going to scream, smile and have a wild ride… and it’s generally safe.”

However, in a time when record labels are fighting back against intellectual property theft, are intentional leaks like Paisley’s a sign that a new business model is in order?

For decades, the music industry operated with one business model: it sold enormous numbers of albums. With the profits it produced, released, and promoted projects. In fact, record companies would be able to negotiate contracts with artists through their access to radio time and studios.

Today, with the Internet as the most valuable tool in the music business, production and release costs are dramatically altered. Single songs are available for purchase, independent of the entire album, and music streaming subscription services allow consumers to listen without purchasing any content at all. Illegal downloads and digital piracy thrive all over the globe and the music marketplace is unrecognizable as compared to decades ago.

Artists like Brad Paisley just get it. His audience can most likely torrent his music for free; however, he undoubtedly won brownie points with fans, allowing for heightened audience interaction and valuable hype. This kind of communication with a fan base that must be convinced to purchase music as opposed to stealing it is just plain smart.

In a video posted to his Facebook account, Paisley explains his reasons for releasing his album early. “It really came down to me wanting to present these songs to the world in the best way possible,” he explained. “It’s all about connecting dots and letting you hear this record the way I intended.”

The new album was officially released on Tuesday, August 26 by Sony Music Nashville. We already knew all the words to almost every song but that’s what makes the moonshine taste so much sweeter.

The post Brad Paisley is a Rebel With Some Moonshine in His Trunk appeared first on Law Street.

We are a self-conscious generation. We care way too much of what our peers think of us, which at times is all consuming. We crave likes on our Facebook pictures, strive for the most amount of retweets, and struggle to make our YouTube videos go viral. We seek approval so badly that we will go to great lengths just to get it; and we’re starting to cross the line. Personally, I see nothing wrong with executing a practical and thoughtful prank — what good is life if you can’t laugh, right? But there is a thin line with jokes and pranks, and a very thin line between a tasteful joke and a offensive joke. When you cross that line onto the offensive side, you’ll find it incredibly hard to come back from that.

A group of kids go to the “hood” and find strangers to pull pranks on and showcase them on YouTube: hood pranks. These “pranks” include pulling strangers’ pants up, approaching people with fake guns, pretending to steal people’s phones, and pretending to take pictures of people. The kids go to predominantly black neighborhoods because they know that these are the areas where people will react the harshest.

Of course these people are going to react with violence. They’re bitter, and how could they not be?They’ve been dealt the shittiest hand of cards of anyone in America. They’ve been ridiculed and they’ve been stepped on, and they carry a weight on their shoulders that we as outsiders can never understand. They are the minority of minorities. And these kids think it’s funny to exploit that, but it really isn’t. What some white people don’t seem to get is that we are done with being disrespected. You cannot go into a predominately black neighborhood, pick a fight, and not expect anything to happen. This isn’t the 17th century, we have a little bit more voice now.  And were going to use that voice.

We’re going to use that voice to tell you that these “pranks” need to stop. We’re going to use that voice to tell you that these “pranks” aren’t funny, they aren’t creative, and most importantly, they’re not actually pranks at all. They are intrusive and obscene acts that exploit black culture and they are useless in helping us progress as a society. I understand that we’re a conscious generation, and we feel the need to impress our peers; but there are lines. When we diminish a whole culture for the sake of some laughs, that is definitely crossing a line. And when you cross this line you completely deserve to get your ass kicked.

Mic Drop

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Hood Pranks” Are Racist Attacks on the Community appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the best legal tweets of the week from members of Law Street’s #300Voices, the top voices in law and policy. Make sure to head over to #300Voices to discover the top Twitter accounts you should be following.

If any #SCOTUS justice ever does the #IceBucketChallenge we’ll have to depend on someone else’s description because there will be no video.

— Supreme Court Haiku (@SupremeHaiku) August 25, 2014

Now that we have a good classroom rhythm going, let’s have a holiday to stop it.

— lawprofblawg (@lawprofblawg) August 28, 2014

You should totally judge me by my retweets. A joke about burritos followed by a tweet about a 7th circuit argument. I’m well rounded. — Mirriam Seddiq (@mirriam71) August 27, 2014

Lawyer Tips: The practice of law can be stressful. Schedule time for yourself each day for quiet sobbing and reflection on your life choice.

— Adrian Baron (@lawbaron) August 29, 2014

Who are the five people you’ll meet in law school? It’s like heaven, but way worse. http://t.co/zAoeFxThfM — Bitter Lawyer (@BitterLawyer) August 26, 2014

Scheme: 1. Find wrongdoing 2. Tell supervisor 3. Supervisor sits on it 4. Tell SEC 5. Split reward with supervisor. http://t.co/jo2cmc3TxE

— Matt Levine (@matt_levine) August 29, 2014

slacker Millenials @TPM: Report: Sen Landrieu lists parents’ home as LA residence http://t.co/PVywDkornM pic.twitter.com/HxZE388zOB

— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) August 28, 2014

But did anyone call him “porky”? https://t.co/g0dAUorwPO

— Molly Ball (@mollyesque) August 28, 2014

Does the FCC get a say in the horizontal integration that is the Brad Pitt- Angelina Jolie merger?

— Eriq Gardner (@eriqgardner) August 28, 2014

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

You’re being tracked.

Surprise!

Well maybe that’s not a surprise since  Americans are pretty cynical on issues of spying. It may surprise people, however, that the things they enjoy, such as digital news articles, videos, wearable technologies, and wireless appliances are all tracking their behavior. Depending on the technology used, data detailing frequency of maintenance, a person’s interests or vital signs, and metadata like location and time is also collected. This information analyzes everything from potential consumer needs, to uncovering relationships and patterns that weren’t previously known. The benefits of big data are enormous but we must consider how else this information could be used? At what point could this become a privacy concern?  Also, what steps are being taken to prevent possible manipulation?

Click here to find out everything you need to know about the big business of Big Data.

The increased use of technology to record defense capabilities, healthcare needs, government practices, as well as maintenance and safety needs are all positive ways big data has affected society. One positive effect translates into saving lives of premature babies after sensors record an uptick in body temperature, which could be a sign of an impending infection. Watching the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services prevent and stop more than $100 million worth of fraud after implementing the Fraud Prevention System, is another example of the advantages of Big Data. These two incredible examples of how Big Data is used as a  positive resource don’t even begin to highlight the many significant contributions it makes to society.

From a business perspective, companies can use the information from data profiling to identify similar or related products, social issues, and events of interest to consumers. How products and events are marketed to consumers is directly related to an advertiser’s ability to collect data and complete a practice known as behavioral targeting. An example of online use that constantly collects data is the social media platform, Facebook.  Most people are unaware that on top of the information provided by their profile, something as simple as posting a picture on Facebook provides more data and other related metadata, such as time and location, to the platform. This information as outlined in the company’s Data Use Policy can be used as stated below.

Sometimes we get data from our affiliates or our advertising partners, customers and other .third parties that helps us (or them) deliver ads, understand online activity, and generally make Facebook better. For example, an advertiser may tell us information about you (like how you responded to an ad on Facebook or on another site) in order to measure the effectiveness of – and improve the quality of – ads.

I want to note the first line of the data use policy section provided above, which says, “sometimes we get data from our affiliates or our advertising partners.”  Now wait a second, how do their ad partners and affiliates have data that can be linked to specific people and why are they able to pass it on to others?  The data use policy explicitly tells us that those affiliates and partners have collected data through responses consumers have provided for other ads on other sites, which is then used to create a behaviorally targeted ad for Facebook and vice versa. In addition, cookies, web beacons, and IP addresses are all used to create an online profile able to frame our digital identities. At that point there’s no real need to have a name that identifies individuals. So when companies like Google, Facebook, Yahoo and others declare that the information they share is passed anonymously, they’re technically telling the truth.

But these capabilities, most of which are not visible or available to the average consumer, also create an asymmetry of power between those who hold the data and those who intentionally or inadvertently supply it. – May 2014 Big Data Report

The outlined intent as stated by the terms above is to improve the Facebook experience by making sure Facebook knows what is important to its users. By identifying what’s important to each individual, Facebook can ensure that users see more of the same information they’re most likely to be interested in on either their newsfeeds or in advertisements. This sounds great right? Modifications made to the information seen on the newsfeed and in advertisements are based on:

1. Interests
2. Location
3. How often you use Facebook
4. Books you like and/or have read
5. Movies you like and/or have seen
6. TV shows you like and/or watch
7. Gender
8. Online purchasing habits
9. Other information provided by Facebook affiliates/partners/third parties
10. Topics you post about
11. Your friends list
12. Clubs/social groups/schools you’re associated with

WAIT ONE MINUTE!

Oh my goodness, they know you in a way that has just gotten uncomfortably scary right?

Not only can your timeline be manipulated, but so can your perception of what is going on around you. Facebook received criticism after admitting that for one week, it intentionally tried to make 155,000 of its users sad for no other reason than just to see if they could do it.  Another example can be seen in how conversations concerning the social upheaval in Ferguson, Missouri was somehow missing from many Facebook newsfeeds while Ice Bucket Challenges were commonly seen. People wanted to know how life on this social media outlet could seem so out of the loop. That was until techies realized that a Facebook algorithm used to filter out posts Facebook feels users wouldn’t be interested in, figured its users were much more interested in Ice Bucket Challenges than discussions on social inequities, policing, race relations, civil liberties and so forth.

For all we know, Facebook may have gotten it right.  After being bombarded by 24-hour news cycles and other  social media outlets like Twitter, which were jammed with Ferguson discussions, it may have been nice for users to escape to a place where Ferguson wasn’t the only thing discussed.

Make no mistake, Facebook is not the only outlet that uses, collects, and has the ability to manipulate Big Data. Beyond Facebook is the general use of the internet and digital technology, all of which can collect big data. What must be done now, is to determine the proper use for this information and identify ways to protect the privacy of users. Several government agencies, departments, and branches of government are interested in discussing these topics. This can be noted by the FTC’s call to identify how data is categorized, used, and the applicable laws to protect consumers. Additionally, organizations like the Open Internet Institute, Common Cause, Free Press, and Public Knowledge have submitted comments to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on the importance of protecting telecommunications metadata.

With more people, governments, and organizations identifying concerns, changes can be made and applicable laws can be clarified to protect consumers and avoid impositions of privacy.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Big Data, Little Privacy appeared first on Law Street.

In the aftermath of the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri and the controversy over the way in which the police department has dealt with the backlash, accusations of officials on a ‘power trip’ are incredibly poignant. According to Ferguson residents interviewed by CNN, “there’s been friction for years with the overwhelmingly white police department.” This statement is made by both African-American and white members of the community.

Courtesy of Light Brigading via Flickr

In the predominantly African-American town, these individuals are highly over-represented in crime statistics. ‘They accounted for 93 percent of arrests after traffic stops, 92 percent of searches and 86 percent of traffic stops.’ Although it is frankly impossible to hide from the racially discriminatory acts that are taking place, I ask why it has taken such a tragic event to acknowledge such wrongdoing? This idea that power can influence the way people act is not uncommon. Social experiments like the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, the soldiers involved in the leaking of the Abu Ghraib photos, and the recent controversies surrounding the invisible war of sexual assault in the military, are just some examples of how power has an effect on producing and allowing crime to occur.

It is time we stop allowing justifications and rationalizations as reasons why individuals feel they can abuse their power. We blame the police officers for abusing their power with excessive force, but what about those in the riots who took advantage of a tragic situation by looting businesses? What about the thousands of individuals who took to Twitter to verbally abuse and criticize individuals because of their race, or because of their involvement in the incident? To say the issue is the hypocrisy of a country built upon equality and democracy is treating the problem, but ignoring those actions that make us revert back to the Civil Rights era, and back to an age when segregation was mandatory, which is the cause.

In the 21st century we have produced a generation so involved in the use of social media to express their opinions, and so involved in the right to voice our opinions, that we are in a sense our own worst enemies. Instead of working alongside law enforcement to protect our country, we are rebelling; instead of fighting the war against racial discrimination, we are fueling it; instead of maintaining the right to have privacy, we are highlighting more reasons to invade it. One of the first pictures of the fatally shot Michael Brown was posted to Twitter by a bystander before any official evidence was given to the police.

In the aftermath of Ferguson, it was announced that “police departments and their equipment suppliers are outfitting their officers with on-body cameras that promise to eliminate the photographic void we saw in Ferguson.” These cameras will be worn by officers during their shifts and will record all of their encounters with any member of the public they interact with. These videos at the end of each shift are then placed in a vault online, where they will only be examined during legal proceedings.

I don’t know about you, but I interact with police officers daily during my lunch break. I am 90 percent sure it is to do with my British accent and their boredom, but I still don’t know how comfortable I would feel knowing they may have a camera turned on recording me buying my lunch. What about those days that I decide it’s a good idea to buy bars of chocolate and bags of chips, if anything they are uncovering my unhealthy habits!

Courtesy of Mark Kirchner via Flickr

As expected with any new regulation, there are no national regulations on how the cameras will be used, or when they will be turned on and off. This is precisely one of the main problems with treating the problem and ignoring the cause. How to you trust an officer is going to keep the camera on for the duration of his shift? How do you rely on technology to take away the ‘power trip’ mentality? The answer: you cannot.

What makes this whole argument over the abuse of power even more valid is the corruption of relationships within the police force. There needs to be some kind of a change to monitor the performance of corrupt officials to ensure that the public can trust in those who are meant to protect them. The backlash from the community in Ferguson has come about from years of distrust in their law enforcement as protectors, and adding video cameras to police officers’ chests is not going to change that.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Matt Katzenberger via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime of Power: Treating the Problem in Ferguson and Ignoring the Cause appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the best legal tweets of the week from some of Law Street’s #300Voices, the top voices in law and policy, then head over to #300Voices discover the top Twitter accounts you should be following.

Tips for recent #law grads: Doesn’t matter what practice area you pursue, your relatives will now assume you can help with any legal problem

— Adrian Baron (@lawbaron) August 22, 2014

“Based on my training and experience” transforms speculative cop bullshit into admissible evidence only because the courts allow it to. — Norm DeGuerre (@NormDeGuerreEsq) July 19, 2014

1Ls, don’t assume those who speak are the smart ones. Amazing how who speaks changes after grades post. #lawschool

— lawprofblawg (@lawprofblawg) August 21, 2014

If you were born in 1976, there is no reason your mother should be calling me, or anyone, about legal matters on your behalf. — Not an Elle (@NotanElle) August 18, 2014

My parents understanding of my career is limited to how lawyers are portrayed on suits

— Alice, Esquire (@alicequire) August 21, 2014

Should you interfere with or resist a cop? No. Can you “challenge” or question or talk back? What else is the First Amendment for? — Kevin Underhill (@loweringthebar) August 19, 2014

Stop giving new lawyers grief for their career choice. Joblessness isn’t a personal failing: http://t.co/q0wMy8hMkN via @MikePMoffatt

— Jordan Furlong (@jordan_law21) August 21, 2014

And today we learned you can’t assign copyright to a monkey’s selfie…. #law http://t.co/FCT211yDCf #TIL pic.twitter.com/rVZCgJibJD — Lee Rosen (@LeeRosen) August 22, 2014

“Someone handed me their business card. Can I add them to my email list?” In Canada & Europe, no. In the U.S. yes, but they will hate you.

— Elizabeth Weinstein (@ElizabethPW) August 20, 2014

—

Chelsey Goff (@cddg) is Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University in DC. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at cgoff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Maryland GovPics via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who has served on a jury, read To Kill a Mockingbird, or watched a legal drama knows that strict formalism and decorum exists in the courtroom. Judges must wear robes, the jury sits in its box, officers escort the defendant in and out, and lawyers speak only when it’s their turn.

This same ceremonious solemnity also makes the courtroom a place of intrigue, especially to a juror. Perhaps never having been in a courtroom, the strangeness and newness of the court experience picques the juror’s interest. Objectively, a courtroom is a bit unusual — where else is it totally normal for someone to walk around in long black robes? The conditions exist for jurors to want to memorialize and capture their experiences through social media — a tweet, selfie, or Instagram upload.

A recent study by the Federal Judicial Center, however, has revealed that few jurors actually succumb to using social media during a trial. This seems counterintuitive. Social media has such an easiness to it, and a trial is such a spectacle — it would only seem natural for jurors to use social media during their court experience. Why don’t they?

The study reveals a few reasons, including that trial judges explicitly prohibit the use of cellphones and carefully instruct jurors to not use social media in reference to the trial. Apparently these admonitions work to curb the desire to tweet or use Instagram. Although the impulse might exist to want to use social media, warnings by the Judge control those inclinations.

Interestingly, jurors buy in. At concerts and movies, instructions often say to not take pictures or record, but few heed these restrictions. What makes the courtroom so different that jurors predominantly comply with the request to refrain from using social media? Is it that they fear criminal penalty?

While penalty might play some role, I think the same reasons that a juror might feel compelled to capture the court experience simultaneously curb social media usage. The formalism of the court creates intrigue but also compliance to the rules of the court. The juror sees the Judge complying with the dress code and donning robes. The lawyers submit to strict procedural rules on how to conduct a trial. Even police officers obey their instructions with scrupulousness. The whole atmosphere in the court is one of obedience, and it is thus not surprising that jurors implicitly follow suit and refrain from using social media when told.

If you have never been to a court, it is an interesting experience. You will notice how an atmosphere, a space, and the culture of a place can change your behavior and how you think.

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Don’t Jurors Succumb to the Lure of the Selfie in Court? appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, was shot and killed by police last weekend in Ferguson, Missouri. He was supposed to start college this week. The incident sparked days of protest in the town, and showed a growing divide between law enforcement and citizens. The police originally said that prior to being killed, Brown tried to take the officer’s gun. A witness to the crime, Brown’s friend, said the boy’s hands were up and it was clear he was trying to cooperate. Now law enforcement claims that he was involved in a strong-arm robbery prior to the shooting. The story is unclear, muddled, and deeply problematic.

Incidents like this are not uncommon. Some have drawn parallels to the killing of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner. And like those incidents, Michael Brown’s killing got big, quickly.

Social media, especially Twitter, exploded with hashtags, pictures, and stories of other similar situations. Michael Brown’s story didn’t stay in Ferguson for too long. In a matter of hours, it was all over the country. What started as raging fire on social media turned into protests and riots in Ferguson. Police responded quickly, and situation has continued to escalate. Many have called for the name of the police officer who killed Brown to be released, and despite the fact that the name has now been released, there are still more questions than answers.

And people besides social media activists and residents of the town have taken notice. Missouri’s Governor made a statement, The FBI announced it would conduct an investigation of the incident, and both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have made statements.

But much of the rhetoric surrounding this event has been about the bigger issue at hand here. While the death of Michael Brown is a tragedy in itself, the nation-wide dialogue has been focused on the killings and discrimination by police of young black men. Ferguson is a small town, and two thirds of its residents are black. But on the police force, there are 50 white officers, but only three black ones. Situations like this are repeated in towns around the country.

Many point to what happened in Ferguson as a microcosm of what is happening in the rest of America. And through social media, there has been increased awareness on the issues–both in Ferguson, and beyond. One of the biggest hashtags to come out of the incident was #IfIWasGunnedDown. People posted two pictures of themselves–one in a very flattering light, and one in a light in which they thought the media would portray them should they be killed.

Another picture that went viral was from students of Howard University. Thousands gathered and stood with the same pose–hands in the air–and Tweeted the picture out. In a matter of hours, it had thousands of favorites and re-tweets.

This pic from last night at Howard U is crazy powerful. Thanks @the_blackness48 @tasneemraja http://t.co/z4hxOR3QHU pic.twitter.com/EyAqYLT49A

— Julia Lurie (@julia_lurie) August 14, 2014

And though the narrative has been similar for some time now, with many young people taking part in the conversation, it seems that more and more leaders on the national level are taking notice and getting involved. Not only are they discussing this specific instance of violence, but the larger, deeply rooted problems in American society. Obama discussed transparency in local police departments. Nancy Pelosi made a statement imploring the Justice Department to investigate Brown’s death. And Rand Paul wrote in Time about a “systematic problem with today’s law enforcement.”

It remains unclear what will happen as a result of Michael Brown’s death. And there is absolutely no way to know whether the calls for change in the justice system, police force, and overall mentality in America will come to fruition. But with these all too common events going viral more often, it may just be a matter of time until something substantive comes as a result of these tragic losses.

[Huffington Post] [Huffington Post] [Holder Statement] [Pelosi Statement] [Howard Picture]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michael Brown’s Death Sparked a National Dialogue appeared first on Law Street.

Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) may be the longest serving member of the House of Representatives, but at 88 years old he’s crushing his colleagues at the Twitter game. He may not have the most followers out of the whole pack, but he’s undoubtedly got the most charm and the best sense of humor. Trust me, if you aren’t following him then you’re missing out. Take a look at these gems just from the last month alone.

He isn’t afraid to cut to the chase.

So it’s a tornado full of sharks? That’s what the entire film is about?

— John Dingell (@john_dingell) July 30, 2014

  He’s mastered the sarcastic hashtag.

#LetsMove RT @RepJeffDenham: My staff made me a birthday cake with lots of Valley veggies to remind me of home. pic.twitter.com/Ty2DbwdK6D — John Dingell (@john_dingell) July 29, 2014

  He wasn’t kidding about that cake.

Contrary to what some say regarding @SenSchumer, the most dangerous place in DC is actually btwn me and this birthday cake my staff got me.

— John Dingell (@john_dingell) July 9, 2014

  He isn’t afraid of a little age joke. 

313 years ago today, Cadillac landed on the banks of the Detroit River. No, I wasn’t there at the time. Happy 313th Birthday, Detroit! #313 — John Dingell (@john_dingell) July 24, 2014

He’s too smart for the Kardashian Kraze.

Staff has now informed me of what a Kardashian is. I’m only left with more questions.

— John Dingell (@john_dingell) July 22, 2014

  He’s the Marquis of Michigan.

With the House adjourned for the week, I’m taking my talents back to Michigan to spend time with constituents. #MI12 pic.twitter.com/1saVo5ubpT — John Dingell (@john_dingell) July 18, 2014

He doesn’t need no stinkin’ filter.

We didn’t need Instagram to get photos like this 50yrs ago, but I’ll still tag it #nofilter. #tbt pic.twitter.com/BM7DgE1gkU

— John Dingell (@john_dingell) July 17, 2014

  He knows how to work the crowd.

Working on speech to an auditorium full of Congressional Interns tomorrow. Staff advises it should be less A, more B. pic.twitter.com/YRlJ31cj8c — John Dingell (@john_dingell) July 15, 2014

He won the 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon game.

Surely a question that has plagued mankind for decades. RT @USATODAY: Why John Dingell is one degree from Kevin Bacon http://t.co/5ItjtYxnWF

— John Dingell (@john_dingell) July 8, 2014

  He only endorses the truly important issues. 

Cosign. RT @espn: Tim Howard. So money. pic.twitter.com/OACEinyciW — John Dingell (@john_dingell) July 1, 2014

He knows you don’t #TurnDown when his beloved Tigers are winning.

That is now the second time I’ve tweeted or retweeted the #TurnDownForWhat hashtag. That said, go @tigers! #BlessYouBoys

— John Dingell (@john_dingell) July 2, 2014

—

Chelsey Goff (@cddg) is Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University in DC. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at cgoff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured imaged courtesy of [Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rep. John Dingell is Better Than You at Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

Mental health and suicide prevention advocates are working to increase awareness of America’s suicide epidemic. In 2011, the most recent year for which there are relevant statistics, more than 39,000 Americans reportedly committed suicide. Suicide by veterans and members of the armed forces have been on the rise since 2001. Although safety nets and other deterrent mechanisms are used to discourage people from taking their lives, it has been proven that the first and most effective step to prevent suicide is recognizing and responding to the signs that signify someone is suffering from depression or mental illness. Advocates and mental health professionals emphasize recognition of trigger behaviors and attempt to provide better services to individuals struggling with depression and mental illness by working with federal, state, and local governments to provide access to essential services.

Click here to see some of the warning signs of suicide.

Here is everything  you need to know about suicide: the causes, policies, and legislation that are used to curb the growing epidemic.

Who is at the highest risk of suicide?

Suicide used to be reported as predominantly affecting teens and much older people, yet according to The New York Times, “from 1999 to 2010, the suicide rate among Americans ages 35 to 64 rose by nearly 30 percent.” Click here to see the most at-risk populations. Suicide also tends to be brought on by life trauma, such as abuse or childhood neglect. People who suffer from depression, mental illness, eating disorders, or have a history of drug use also have an increased chance of suicide.

Suicide Prevention Policies and Legislation

Case Study: Duke Ellington and Taft Bridges in Washington, DC 

Similar to the Golden Gate Bridge, the Duke Ellington Bridge in Northwest Washington, DC is an infamous location for suicides. On average about four suicides a year occur on the bridge, and in 1985, three people jumped off of it within a 10-day period. The busy Rock Creek Park below is a daunting 125-foot plunge. Half of all suicides in the District of Columbia occur on this notorious bridge.

In 1987, the National Trust for Historic Preservation brought a lawsuit against the efforts to build a suicide barrier at the Duke Ellington bridge. The organization claimed that the project was not protected by the Department of Transportation Act and that ultimately the erection of a barrier would ruin the historical and aesthetic appeal of the well-known bridge. The Trust also argued that the barrier served no purpose as people intent on committing suicide would simply migrate to the nearby Taft Bridge. In 1990, Congress vetoed the case to remove the barriers, and they still remain in tact today. A study conducted five years after the barrier construction showed that there were no suicides committed from the Duke Ellington bridge, and the count on the Taft Bridge remained virtually unchanged. In this case, the suicide barrier seems to be effective in the nation’s capital, once again proving suicide to be impulsive in nature.

Duke Ellington Bridge in Washington D.C. [Michiel 1972 via Wikipedia]

Suicide Barrier on the Duke Ellington Bridge [Alyson Hurt via Flickr]

Bullying and Suicide

Case Study: Rebecca Ann Sedwick

In September 2013, Florida resident Rebecca Ann Sedwick committed suicide after being repeatedly bullied throughout her time at Crystal Lake Middle School. Sedwick’s mother, Tricia Norman, pulled her from the school after Sedwick had been attacked by a group of peers. Norman also discovered harassing text messages on her daughter’s phone, and even more shockingly Sedwick had self-inflicted cuts up and down her legs.

After Norman became aware of her daughter’s torment, she moved her to Lawton Chiles Middle Academy to attend the seventh grade. Despite the change in schools, the bullying continued. Most of it came from social media websites such as Kik Messenger, Instagram, and Ask.fm, all of which can be used anonymously. Some of these messages included: “You should die” and “why don’t you go kill yourself?”

Twelve-year-old Katelyn Roman and 14-year-old Guadalupe Shaw were charged with aggravated stalking and arrested as juveniles. Just one month later, the charges were dropped, and the war between Norman and the authorities began. According to CNN, Norman’s attorney said in a statement that he plans to sue both the  Polk County School Board and one or both of the girls who were arrested in the case.

Bullying: Social Media

The main reason that the charges against Roman and Shaw were dropped is because of the lack of available evidence. Many of the sites that Sedwick was bullied on were “disappearing apps,” meaning that the messages would automatically be deleted after a short period of time. In an attempt to gain justice for Sedwick and prevent future online bullying cases from going unidentified, Norman continues to work to develop a safer social media environment. Recently one the websites that Sedwick used, Ask.fm, added a “Safety Tools” page that details its anti-bully safety features.

Click here to read more about bullying and social media.

Rebecca’s Law

In response to Sedwick’s suicide as a result of bulling, Florida is considering Rebecca’s Law, which would punish bullying as a  misdemeanor and aggravated bullying as a third-degree felony. In Florida where Sedwick was a resident, there is no legislation that can punish an individual legally solely based on the loosely defined term “bullying.” If the bill passes, alleged bullies could face fines or in more severe consequences jail time.

This is not the only case that has resulted in the suicide of a school-aged child or teen. In response to the tragedy, the Safe Schools Improvement Act of 2013  was proposed to crack down on bullying in schools. Its main purpose is to outline anti-bullying policies, which include creating a comfortable and safe environment at school for every child. The bill calls for the state to submit an annual report evaluating the programs being used to end bullying in secondary and elementary schools. The bill calls for evaluation of training programs for professionals, as well as a survey of parent involvement.

Case Study: Grace’s Law

Fifteen-year-old Grace McComas of Howard County, Maryland committed suicide on Easter Sunday 2012. Similar to Sedwick, McComas was repeatedly harassed on online social media sites, which ultimately drove her to suicide.

In response to the death of McComas, Grace’s Law  was passed in 2013 to end cyber bullying through the banning and regulation of electronic harassment. The law prohibits “a person from using a computer or computer network to disseminate certain data with the malicious intent to psychologically torment or harass a minor.” Anyone who chooses to violate this and bully someone under the age of 18 could be punished with a misdemeanor charge.

Suicide on College Campuses

Suicide at Universities

College is a stressful time for many students; they are in a new environment, have to make new friends, and are under the pressure of maintaining both good grades and the responsibility of extracurricular activity. College can be a balancing act, and often stress, depression, and loneliness can affect and overwhelm students. In extreme cases they resort to what they feel to be the last option, suicide. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, “Suicide is the third leading cause of death on college campuses” and the Jed Foundation reports that, “half of all college students have had suicidal thoughts.”

Not only does suicide affect the friends and family members if the deceased, it also puts universities at risk for lawsuit.

University Responsibility

Many schools adhere to the No-Duty-to-Prevent-Suicide rule; however, there have been cases in which families of students who committed suicide sue the school based on its mental health policy. One such case, Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County occurred in Maryland. The parents of Nicole Eisel sued the School Board for the middle-school counselor’s failure to report Eisel’s expression of suicidal preoccupation. This case set a standard for both counselors and schools: “School counselors have a duty to use reasonable means to attempt to prevent a suicide when they are placed on notice of a student’s suicidal intent.” A school will not necessarily be convicted in the case of a student suicide, yet if the student expresses obvious signs and the school fails to intervene, it may be held liable. In contrasting cases such as White v. University of Wyoming, Jain v. State, and Bogust v. Iverson, the No-Duty-to-Prevent-Suicide rule held and the schools were ultimately exempt from accountability for student suicides.

Organizations to Prevent Suicide at Universities

The most recognized organization in suicide reform is the organization started by Alison Malmon, Active Minds. It was founded in Washington DC in 2003, three years after Malmon’s brother committed suicide due to mental health issues. Active Mind’s main mission is to eliminate the stigma associated with mental illness and urge students to seek help.

One parent, whose college-aged son committed suicide created the Jason Foundation, which works to prevent youth suicide through awareness and education. The organization is working to create a smartphone app that will connect people contemplating suicide directly to a hotline to receive support and immediate intervention.

There are also organizations such as the Jed Foundation that focus on student mental health and work to end suicide in the college population through campus counseling and programs. The Jed Foundation is fighting to have congress include a mental health screening within its health reform bills.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness offers several education and support services for mental health crises, as well as support the battle to end suicide on campuses.

The Campus Suicide Prevention Grants program targets students with mental illness and substance abuse issues. It aims to improve services and expand access to services for students who are at a higher risk of suicide. Both private and public institutions of higher learning can apply for the grant 

Suicide Prevention: National Innovation

Surgeon General Regina Benjamin is a strong backer of the national initiative to decrease suicide in the United States. A National Strategy containing four main pillars has been proposed:

1. Direct a focus to the family, the individual, and the community.
2. Develop better preventative techniques.
3. Provide efficient and easily accessible treatment for mental health.
4. Improve the surveillance of data and enact appropriate and timely methods based on the analysis.

Medicaid has already started to cover depression screenings. According to USA TODAY, “physicians will be rewarded by Medicare and Medicaid for screening depressed patients for suicide risk.” This is an incentive for doctors to follow through with care, and highlights the importance of mental healthcare.

Two bills currently being considered by the House of Representatives are aimed at mental healthcare improvements. HR 3717, the “Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act,” covers psychiatric support for families and patients that have the most crucial needs. HR 4574, the “Strengthening Mental Health in our Communities Act of 2014″ includes offering more community-based services accessible to individuals with mental health needs. Organizations such as The National Alliance on Mental Illness, are strong supports of this legislation and are petitioning to have it enacted into law. 

Suicide Prevention: State Level

Case Study: The Matt Adler Suicide Assessment, Treatment, and Management Act of 2012

Lawyer Matt Adler committed suicide in February 2011 due to extreme depression and anxiety. In response to her husband’s death, Adler’s wife Jennifer Stuber worked with the state of Washington to take legislative action to prevent future suicides. One year later in March 2012, the Matt Adler Suicide Assessment, Treatment, and Management Act was signed into law. The Act requires “mental health professionals, social workers, and occupational therapists to receive six hours of training every six years, as part of their continuing education requirement.“ This mandatory training ensures that professionals are better equipped to identify and handle signs of suicide. 

Click here to see Washington State Bill that requires mandatory training for clinical professionals on suicide prevention.

Almost every state has a plan to prevent suicide, including similar tactics to combat the issue, such as education, suicide-awareness initiatives, survey and analysis of statistical evidence, and improvement of medical and support services are all strategies to fight the epidemic. To see a few of these suicide prevention plans, click on the state link: Colorado , Indiana, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, California, Texas, and Idaho.

Methods of Action

Zero Suicide Academy

Although suicide barriers and hotline support can stop the act of suicide, they do not address the underlying issues at hand — the victim’s mental health. Even if someone is deterred from suicide once, it does not guarantee that the thoughts will be permanently eliminated. People who contemplate suicide tend to have a suicidal tendency based on mental or environmental causes.

In response to the nationwide epidemic, the Alliance for Suicide Prevention held a conference in Washington, DC in June 2014. Participants discussed several methods of identifying risk factors and methods of action to reduce suicide rates. The discussion revolved around the “Zero Suicide Toolkit” that includes six components:

1. Creating the Zero Suicide Culture. This consists of creating efficient and reliable care for people at risk, while also ensuring that the clinicians themselves receive care and compassion in order to maintain a healthy and effective environment for both the patient and the professional.

2. Ensuring Every Person Has a Pathway to Care is an important element in identifying suicidal behaviors and preventing the patient taking action based on their specific risk level and needs. Follow-up care is also an important component in ensuring every patient receives the most effective care.

3. Developing a Competent Workforce  is key to keeping employees mentally healthy. This consists of developing a system where there is “collaboration, team approaches, and effective communication” in place. Employees and behavioral health staff should be aware of suicidal signs and react in a supportive manner. The behavioral staff, should be trained and able to provide the mental health needs of staff at risk. 

4. Identifying and Assessing Suicide Risk Level is important in understanding each individual’s specific situation and reacting based on a plan tailored to that person’s specialized treatment needs.

5. Using Effective, Evidence-based Care  focuses on keeping the individual out of a hospital setting if possible. This consists of collaborative therapy with a focus on behavioral and problem-solving strategies.

6. Continuing contact after care is a vital component in ensuring that the patient will remain healthy. Follow-up services and support groups are a key element in maintaining an individual’s well being after initial care.

Click here to see the conference framework in its entirety.

Conclusion

There is progress being made toward slowing the suicide epidemic in this country, including action at the local, state, and federal levels to decrease the rate of suicide. Education, awareness, and supportive services for families, communities, and mental health professionals are all part of broad framework to combat suicide. Suicide is a mental health issue with subjective impulses, so it is to completely eliminate, yet as a society we have started to recognize the signs and are taking policy and legislative action to combat this epidemic.

Resources

Healthy Children: Help Stop Teen Suicide 

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention: Preventing Suicide 

UCLA Center: School Interventions to Prevent Youth Suicide

ABC: Mom of Suicide Tween Rebecca Sedwick to Sue ‘Those Responsible’

Crimesider: “Rebecca’s Law” aims to punish bullying in Fla.

SPRC: Success and Inspiration at the Zero Suicide Academy 

The New York Times: The Urge to end it all 

Action Alliance: Zero Suicide in Health and Behavioral Health Care

USA Today: Surgeon General Urges new Focus on Suicide Prevention 

USA Today: Suicide Prevention the Focus of new Government , Campus Programs 

Huffington Post: How to Prevent Your Ivy League Student From Becoming Suicidal 

USA Today: Recent has University Reflecting on College Stress 

CNN: Police file raises questions about bullying in Rebecca Sedwick’s suicide

Baltimore Sun: Grace’s Law, a cyberbullying bill, called ‘landmark legislation’

Fordham Law Review: Keeping Students Alive: Mandating On-Campus Counseling Saves Suicidal College Students’ Livesand Limits Liability

UNC Law: Student Suicides and School System Liability

Ledger: Lakeland Girl Commits Suicide After 1½ Years of Being Bullied

CNN: Sheriff: Taunting post leads to arrests in Rebecca Sedwick bullying death

USA Today: Surgeon General Urges New Focus Prevention on Suicide Prevention

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Suicide Prevention Policies Aim to Curb Epidemic appeared first on Law Street.

Meriam Ibrahim, the 27-year-old Christian woman who was jailed for apostasy in Sudan and sentenced to death by hanging last May has finally been set free, again.

Ibrahim’s story has gone global as she is the only Sudanese woman to escape a death sentence without renouncing her faith. Ibrahim was convicted of apostasy, the renunciation of one’s religion, after marrying a Christian man, Daniel Wani in 2011. The Sudanese government sentenced Ibrahim to death after she birthed her child, but through the efforts of diplomats and other world leaders, Ibrahim was released from jail and the charges were dropped.

Ibrahim’s release seemed to be a step forward by the hard-ass Islamic government in Sudan. It seemed that they had finally realized how barbaric they were being. But just as I raised my hands up to applaud the Sudanese government, they went and re-arrested the poor woman.

Liars! I say liars! Ibrahim barely had 24 hours of freedom before she was arrested for trying to leave the country. Really? Just for trying to leave after being imprisoned for holding on to her faith. Sudan, I didn’t hold your policies in the highest regard before, but now I am so ashamed, I can barely look you in the eye.

So ashamed.

Thankfully she was re-released on the condition that she remains in Sudan, according to her lawyer. She now faces forgery charges because of the travel documents she attempted to use to fly out of the country. South Sudan gave visas to the family to travel to America because the husband, Wani, is recognized as a citizen there. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that Ibrahim had all the documents needed to travel to the U.S., but that “it is up to the government of Sudan to allow her to exit the country.” Sudan sounds like a clingy ex if you ask me.

You would think that through all this Ms. Ibrahim would at least have the support of her family right? Wrong. Her own brother was quoted by CNN saying, “The family is unconvinced by the court’s decision. We were not informed by the court that she was to be released; this came as a surprise to us…This is now an issue of honor. The Christians have tarnished our honor, and we will know how to avenge it.”

Who said blood was thicker than water?

If it wasn’t for the international outcry by so many official figures across the world, Ms. Ibrahim wouldn’t have been saved. But support has come from notable figures such as British Prime minister David Cameron who said he was “absolutely appalled,” by the sentence given by the court, and told The Times that “religious freedom is an absolute, fundamental human right, I urge the government of Sudan to overturn the sentence and immediately provide appropriate support and medical care for her and her children.”

Amnesty International headed a campaign demanding the immediate release and halted execution of Ibrahim, started a Change.org petition that has gained more than 600,000 signatures, and released a statement saying, “the fact that a woman has been sentenced to death for her religious choice, and to flogging for being married to a man of an allegedly different religion is appalling and abhorrent. Adultery and apostasy are acts which should not be considered crimes at all. It is a flagrant breach of international human rights law.”

The U.S. State Department said it was “deeply disturbed” by the sentence and called on the Sudanese government to respect Ms. Ibrahim’s religious freedoms.

And to put the sweet icing on top of the justice cake, tweets calling on the Sudanese government to release Ibrahim from Hillary Clinton, David Cameron, and British personality Laura Laverne were retweeted thousands of times.

I am absolutely appalled by the decision to sentence #MeriamIbrahim to death. The way she is being treated has no place in today's world.

— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) May 31, 2014

Meriam Yahya Ibrahim’s death sentence is abhorrent. Sudan should stop threatening religious freedom and fundamental human rights.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 24, 2014

#Sudan: pregnant mother sentenced to death for apostasy. Take action to save her life https://t.co/fQqZlRIRxx

— Lauren Laverne (@laurenlaverne) May 21, 2014

The problem at hand here is the so called “Freedom of Religion” in Sudan. In 2005 the Interim National Constitution of Sudan provided freedom of religion throughout the entire country, but in practice religious minorities exist between the North and the South. Christians in the North face strong social pressure to convert, and Muslims who express interest in converting face even stronger pressures to recant. Ibrahim was the first woman who did not have to convert religions to be released. Forcing women into believing in a certain religion doesn’t seem all that holy to me, and while the step is small, Ms. Ibrahim’s case is a step in the right direction.

Although she is being forced to stay in Sudan, I have a strong feeling that Amnesty International, the U.S. State Department, the British Parliament, and Hillary Clinton will all still have a strong voice in the matter and Ms. Ibrahim and her family will be free at last.

Bring it

—

Trevor Smith

Featured imaged courtesy of [Waiting for the Word via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meriam Ibrahim: Free at Last? appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court is finally ruling on free speech relating to social media platforms. Now, before we jump the gun and say putting limitations on free speech is a violation of the First Amendment, let me explain. This conversation was sparked by a recent case — United States of America v. Anthony Douglas Elonis. I originally thought the outcome of this case was absurd — the defendant is serving more than three years in prison for a few eccentric Facebook posts. Really? Then I dug deeper and what I found was quite disturbing.

After losing his wife, his kids, and his job, Anthony Elonis was depressed and angry. He turned to Facebook to rant. And the “raps” he posted threatened his former place of work, his wife, innocent children, and an FBI agent. Below are some excerpts from his “rap lyrics”:

I also found out that it’s incredibly illegal,
extremely illegal, to go on Facebook and say
something like the best place to fire a mortar
launcher at her house would be from the
cornfield behind it because of easy access to a
getaway road and you’d have a clear line of
sight through the sun room.
Insanely illegal.
Ridiculously, wrecklessly, insanely illegal.
Yet even more illegal to show an illustrated
diagram.
===[ __ ] =====house
: : : : : : : ^ : : : : : : : : : : : :cornfield
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
######################getaway road
Insanely illegal.
Ridiculously, horribly felonious.
Cause they will come to my house in the middle
of the night and they will lock me up.
Extremely against the law.

In another post he “rapped” about shooting up a kindergarten classroom:

That’s it, I’ve had about enough
I’m checking out and making a name for myself
Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius
to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever
imagined
And hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a
kindergarten class
The only question is . . . which one?

Do you feel uncomfortable yet? You can also check out the hearing transcript for more of Elonis’ disconcerting posts. By now, you’re probably pretty creeped out by this weird Eminem wannabe. Well, he served his time: a 44-month sentence. What makes me see red is why he was convicted.

Elonis landed in the slammer for “transmit[ting] in interstate or foreign commerce any
communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another…” Anyone else think it’s problematic that despite his threats, which blatantly targeted his wife, he was sentenced on a technicality?

Cyber threats are common; Elonis’ wife is not alone. Now the media is examining when rap crosses the line from being “gangsta” to being threatening? This issue is at the crux of the case the Supreme Court will hear in the upcoming term.

True Threats

While true threats are not protected by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court is struggling with ambiguities like cyber threats. The last time the court had a case involving threats was the 2003 case Virginia v. Black et al. The court defined true threats as “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

Elonis defended his posts as art, saying he therefore lacked intent to actually carry out those threats. But his threats were specific, well thought-out, and frightening. So were his posts true threats or merely artistic expression? That’s exactly the question SCOTUS will have to answer.

When Does Rap go too Far?

Elonis is one of many who have been put on trial for violent content in rap lyrics. Now who doesn’t love some good ol’ fashioned hate-the-world, go burn in hell, Eminem-style rap? I actually love Eminem – my iTunes holds precisely 54 of his songs. Yes, his raps are graphic, violent, angry, and sometimes downright grotesque. But, aside from his mother, whom he actually bought a mansion, he does not outline specific plans for a single person’s demise. He’s just angry at the world, that’s all.

So, this is where Eminem’s content differs from Elonis’, among others. The debate is tangled — scholars and legal professionals need to consider artistic expression, intent, and how that plays out in the cyber world.

A group of legal scholars are defending Elonis and his “artistic expression” posts on Facebook. Clay Calvert, Erik Nielson, and Charis E. Kubrin argue that the context in which artistic expression is interpreted depends on its vessel of dissemination, in this case, social media. So, higher courts have difficulty determining the context and the intent, which both affect the verdict of threat cases involving social media posts.

The subject is highly complex, but my opinion on this is simple. If you post poorly written yet fear-inducing threats to Facebook, you deserve to be put away. Elonis is clearly not stable, as you can see from the nostalgic posts about his ex-wife, whom he threatened to behead.

Rap is considered an art form, so it’s protected by the First Amendment. But throw social media into the mix and our Constitution becomes difficult to apply. So, yes, I’m relieved the Supreme Court will rule on this convoluted case because it will have long-reaching ramifications. I would certainly feel more secure if social media threats were considered more seriously, especially considering the shooting in Santa Barbara last month.

When it comes to threats, there is a fine line between protecting our First Amendment rights and protecting our citizens. My hope is that the Supreme Court will find a solution by defining when threats should be taken literally and when they are artistic ploys.

Featured image courtesy of [dcwriterdawn via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court to Determine How Free Speech Applies to Social Media appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Like it or not we live in a social media world — it is sometimes shoved down our throats when we don’t want it to be. No matter what show I watch, especially the news, everyone has a Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Vine, or Pinterest logo popping up on the screen attached to the handle of whomever is speaking at that moment. Don’t get me wrong, I love social media, but I wonder how far we have allowed this phenomenon to take us that soon-to-be married couples are considering Social Media Prenups.

I tend to be a fairly private person and I don’t post every move I make on Facebook. My Twitter, on the other hand, is an outlet for everything that is going on, but I try to keep it as anonymous as possible for others involved. With that said, there are plenty of people out there who put their entire lives on Facebook and Instagram. I think it’s great if you are one of those people, you are braver than I am. But where do you draw the line?

I always thought a prenuptial agreement was something that was drawn up for a couple on the incase that the marriage might go south and the individuals need to protect themselves during the fallout. When did dictating what a person can or cannot do during the marriage based on social media become a thing? Why would you marry someone who did not respect your verbal wishes of keeping certain things private and between each other and not put it out for the whole world to see? This concept of a social media prenup screams a lack of respect for one another’s privacy and wishes, so maybe you shouldn’t marry that person if he can’t do the simplest of things. Not to mention that respect should be a deal breaker. If you don’t respect the other person then why are you with them?

I love social media, but this is getting out of hand. Penalizing your spouse for posting a picture, really!?! That’s unnecessary drama just waiting to happen. I do understand that if the marriage ends and your now-ex decides to post awful pictures and sexual videos or slander your name, you have every right to penalize them and that should be something included in a prenup — or even just a simple contract for married couples. But just because your husband posts a picture of you that you think doesn’t look good should not warrant a fee. Simply ask him to take the photo down! And if he refuses, y’all have bigger issues than a bad photo on the internet.

According to ABC News, people are also creating “love contracts,” which are essentially something that promotes a way of communicating and understanding one another’s boundaries. I think it’s a good idea but attaching a financial penalty to posting a bad photo is just insane, petty, and childish. Laying out a plan and understanding ways of better communication should be something every couple does before getting married.

Go out and enjoy life. Share it on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, or Vine. Just don’t cross a line that you know would upset your significant other. Respect your relationship and respect social media.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Quinn Dombrowski via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Don’t Jump on the Social Media Prenup Bandwagon appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday night, this puzzling exchange happened on American Airlines’ Twitter account: 

American Airlines Twitter via USA Today.

The tweeter in question is a 14-year-old girl named Sarah. She has since told the press that the tweet was a joke — because apparently Sarah has no idea what a joke is.

After American Airlines tweeted that they were sending her information to the FBI, she tweeted about how scared she was, and that she was “just a fangirl pls I don’t have evil thoughts and plus I’m a white girl.”  It really does seem like a ploy for attention though, given that she also tweeted to the world her number of followers and pretty much her entire experience with the fallout. She has since been arrested, and American Airlines released a statement saying, “At American, the safety of our passengers and crew is our number one priority. We take security matters very seriously and work with authorities on a case by case basis.”

Well, clearly Sarah isn’t very bright. But most people should know that tweeting terror threats at a major airline is an incredibly bad idea, right?

In actuality, since this story broke, about a dozen different people have sent similar threats to American Airlines, as well as a few have to Southwest Airlines, a completely unrelated company. And there were other inflammatory tweets sent out in support of “Plus I’m a white girl” Sarah. I can’t get over this, really. Why in the world would anyone ever think it’s a good idea to say these things. I cannot imagine that young people who are savvy enough to use Twitter don’t understand how IP addresses work. It’s really pretty easy for law enforcement to find pretty much anyone.

And this Sarah girl is by no means the only person her age to say something exceptionally stupid on the internet. There have been countless similar incidents. For example, last February, a teen from Texas got into an argument with a friend on Facebook over a video game. He ended up commenting something to the effect of “Oh yeah, I’m real messed up in the head, I’m going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts. LOL. JK.” That young man, Justin Carter, ended up getting arrested for the comment, which was charged as a terror threat. 

And in one of my favorite cases, a few weeks ago, a particularly oblivious teenager lost her parents about $80,000. Her father, Patrick Snay, won a lawsuit against his former employer, a private school in Miami, in which he alleged age discrimination. Part of the settlement included a confidentiality clause — Snay and his wife weren’t supposed to share the information with anyone other than their attorneys and other pertinent professional advisers. But just a few days later, their daughter posted this message to her 1,200 Facebook friends: “Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.” And of course, that breaks the confidentiality agreement, and cost the family the $80,000 settlement.

There are plenty of incidents of young people getting in trouble because of the incredibly stupid stuff they put up on social media. I don’t know why that is. Maybe we don’t treat social media platforms as the fully public forum that they are. Sometimes when you’re sitting on your couch in pajamas and getting into a debate with your friends on Facebook about something stupid, it’s easy to forget that everyone can see it. Or maybe teenagers have been very stupid for years, and it’s only now that they have a microphone for that stupidity, and thus we get things like Twitter threats to airlines. Either way, let this serve as a reminder to watch what you say on the Internet. It may come back to haunt you, big time.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Sandy via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Newsflash: Tweeting Terror Threats is a Terrible Idea appeared first on Law Street.

Attention companies using Pinterest as part of your marketing strategy: proceed with extreme caution. The popular social network, or “copyright infringement machine” as one commentator calls it, has turned into a platform where companies must tread carefully or face legal consequences.

Recently, Cole Haan, a fashion label specializing in footwear, ran a seemingly innocuous contest on Pinterest that ended up catching the attention of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The brand created the “Wandering Sole” campaign and sought to use Pinterest to market it. Thus, Cole Haan asked Pinterest users to create boards with their favorite Cole Haan images from the company’s own “Wandering Sole” board, and for the users to pin their favorite places to wander. Users who participated received the chance to win a $1000 cash reward.

win a $1,000 shopping spree from @colehaan ! share where your sole's are going to wander – http://t.co/m4cK5RCcDM

— Jennifer Chong (@jchongstudio) May 26, 2013

This contest — a popular type in the social media marketing world — may not seem detrimental; however, federal law provides that a company must make clear that it has a financial relationship with the individuals endorsing it. It seems that Cole Haan accidentally used Pinterest as a vehicle for illicit advertising. A user coming across the images pinned as part of the contest had no way of knowing that the images were in the running for a prize of $1000. In order to legally run the campaign, Cole Haan would’ve had to disclose the financial incentive.

Specifically, the FTC made four conclusions regarding the Wandering Sole campaign:

1. Pinterest users’ pins featuring Cole Haan images were endorsements. (‘Endorsement’ is a legal term of art, and the FTC has its own guidelines regarding the use of endorsements).
2. Individuals using Pinterest who saw the pins and boards relating to Cole Haan’s campaign had no reasonable way of knowing that the pins were motivated by a chance to win $1,000.
3. Cole Haan did not take appropriate steps to make it clear to average Pinterest users that the pins were part of a campaign with a $1,000 cash reward.
4. Cole Haan did not instruct participants in the campaign to disclose that their activity stemmed from Cole Haan’s campaign, not their own unsolicited Pinterest activity.

Importantly, the FTC decided not to persue enforcement action despite suggesting that Cole Haan violated federal policy. Basically, the FTC wrote a letter reprimanding Cole Haan, but did not financially punish the company or pursue any legal action. This likely results from the novelty of these issues. Companies using social media sites often accidentally violate federal laws since the platforms create new user experiences that do not perfectly cohere to the world the laws originally intended to govern. This is something we are bound to see a whole lot more of until the laws catch up with technological innovation.

—

Imran Ahmed is a law student and writer living in New York City whose blog explores the legal implications of social media and the internet. Contact him via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [afunkydamsel via Flickr]

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are You Sure You Want to Pin That? appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like the US just can’t catch a break on the international relations front these days. Just in case you aren’t aware, America is very publicly getting her ass handed to her on the global stage. I’m not even going to talk about the Russia and Crimea disaster. I’ll roll right over Venezuela forcing American Embassy officials to leave, and bashing Panama for being the United States’ “lackey.” What I really want to talk about is the latest incident between the US and Cuba, which is quite interesting, and more importantly, involves our favorite topic — technology.

To set this up, Cuba is open about its vigilant monitoring and prevention of access to communication and the internet. Ramiro Valdes, former Cuban telecommunications minister, referred to the internet as a “wild colt,” believing it “should be tamed.”  With that pointed out, is it wrong to let a country decide their own internet restrictions and communication freedoms?

It’s reported that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) spent an estimated $1.6 million to develop and implement Zunzuneo, a Cuban social network similar to Twitter. The Associated Press claimed that USAID conspired to influence political thought and incite support of the Cuban people to challenge their government. In addition, there were suggestions that USAID wanted to gather important information of Cuban cellphone users.

Zunzuneo’s implementation was somewhat elaborate. The use of offshore bank accounts and operating companies, marketing campaigns to encourage new users, and mock ads to give the appearance of a legitimate company, were all enlisted to hide the social media platform’s origin. Zunzuneo gained a following of nearly 40,000 over its two-year existence, but the program abruptly ended after losing its funding in 2012. Yesterday Congress requested a hearing with USAID’s  Administrator, Rajiv Shah, to question him on the program’s purpose and if it sought to gather information about Cuban cellphone users. In response Shah said, “The purpose of the program was to support access to information and to allow people to communicate with each other.”  USAID has also released their eight facts about ZunZuneo.

That’s USAID’s story, and they’re sticking to it. However, let’s critically think this through. The US has never gotten over its inability to make Cuba revolt against Castro, nor can they accept the loss of influence the US had over the Cuban government.  Also, in 2010 we witnessed several countries rising up against their governments and succeeding in overthrowing them. Much of the ability of protesters and revolutionaries was due to technology, specifically social media outlets like YouTube and Twitter to communicate to the masses both inside and outside of their countries.

The influence of social media is quite evident, which is why people and organizations are always asking us to check out their Facebook page and tweet them. USAID is known for providing services and resources to populations around the world in need — because of this reputation, we shouldn’t discount their claims of wanting to provide a kind of technology and communication to a population that doesn’t have it. In acknowledging this possibility, I also have to acknowledge that if a government agency wanted to influence young people in another country, the use of social media would probably be  the most helpful in accomplishing that goal.

__

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did USAID Actually Create Zunzuneo, the Cuban Twitter? appeared first on Law Street.

“A friend who dies, it’s something of you who dies.” – Gustave Flaubert

Death is serious, and in contemporary times, social media companies must choose how to incorporate the major life event into their platforms. A sense exists that death, so heavy a subject, must be treated differently; normal commercial interests should subside and companies should develop their policies appropriate for its gravity. The choice of how to deal with death is not self-evident. Social media sites have many options: they can abolish deceased person’s site; leave the site in the state it existed just before the deceased person died; or create some alternative site format for those who have passed away. The choice requires a near-philosophical inquiry into how the platform can best deal with the gravity of death.

Facebook recently decided to change their policy regarding deceased users, and some feel it was done in a duplicitous and covert fashion.

The policy change weakened the privacy settings applied to those who pass away. For deceased Facebook users who had open privacy settings prior to their death, Facebook now allows their pages to remain accessible to the public at large. This is a departure from their previous policy, which restricted access to friends only following a user’s death.

This decision has important privacy considerations. For example, the average Facebook user changes his or her privacy settings throughout the his or her time on the site. Why should the privacy settings utilized right before a user’s death be immortalized for all time? Couldn’t Facebook have allowed users to make the decision of their privacy settings in the case of death? What gives Facebook the right to make that decision?

Instead of addressing this policy change head on, Facebook decided to write about it in a post entitled, “Remembering our Loved Ones.” The title appears too sentimental to merely apply to the shift in privacy rights. Instead, the post also deals with a new feature that Facebook now makes available to family members of a deceased Facebook user: the “Look Back” life montage video.

But was Facebook really being sincere? Two separate issues are being conflated. In Facebook’s post, the company seemingly couched a significant privacy policy change under an appealing and overwhelmingly correct decision to create a “Look Back” video. While these both relate with death, I wonder if they necessarily needed to be mentioned in the same post? Did Facebook exploit the tear-jerker YouTube video to obfuscate any potential backlash movement against the softening of user privacy?

An analysis of the Facebook post illuminates a potential calculating craftiness regarding how they reveal their information about the diminishing privacy rights.

1. The post begins by writing about the company’s commitment to improving user experience and how users contact Facebook to memorialize the accounts of deceased loved ones.

As members of Facebook’s Community Operations team, we talk to people who use Facebook every day and we’re committed to making their experience better. Some of the people who reach out to us are grieving the death of a friend or family member, and they usually ask for their loved one’s timeline to be memorialized.

2. The post then delves into the fact that the company seriously contemplates the issue of how to deal with the death of a Facebook user. They acknowledge that such questions have “no easy answer” and they wonder if they are “honoring the wishes” of the deceased.

3. Then, they finally introduce their discussion about the change in privacy policy.

We’ve decided to make an important change to how we preserve legacies on Facebook. Up to now, when a person’s account was memorialized, we restricted its visibility to friends-only… Starting today, we will maintain the visibility of a person’s content as-is. This will allow people to see memorialized profiles in a manner consistent with the deceased person’s expectations of privacy. We are respecting the choices a person made in life while giving their extended community of family and friends ongoing visibility to the same content they could always see.

Notably, the “important change” referenced was not described as an important change in privacy rights, but as an important change in how the company “preserves legacies on Facebook.” The company uses softer word choice to distract from what is actually happening.

Death deserves frank speech, but Facebook seems to evade the discussion. Facebook states that the policy change will respect the deceased person’s “expectations of privacy,” but does not substantiate why. Rather, the company merely announces that they are respecting the choices a person made in life. This is spurious reasoning. When a Facebook user makes a privacy change while alive, the user does not contemplate their death and the fact that such a setting might still apply at that time. They do not connect why a person’s decisions while alive reflect what he or she would want when deceased.

Instead of probing deeper into the issue, the rest of the post introduces the agreeable, supportable “Look Back” video policy. The new feature has little connection with the change in privacy settings and takes the reader away from the issue. The universally appealing feature is sandwiched between privacy changes with suspect reasoning and artful dodging of the issue.

I do not necessarily disagree with the change in policy, but I find it disconcerting that Facebook employs skilled writing techniques to avoid a frank discussion on the issue. Humans generally drop all guises in the midst of death. Social media sites should do the same. Facebook argues that their new policy is consistent with a user’s “expectation of privacy,” but they present the change in a manner inconsistent with a user’s “expectation” of honesty.

—

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York City whose blog explores the legal implications of social media and the internet. Contact him via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [Tim Wayne via Flickr]

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook Controls Your Privacy Settings Even After You Die appeared first on Law Street.

LinkedIn is basically a prerequisite when job hunting now. Countless companies require that you apply with your profile and the site has one of the biggest job boards out there. Despite its prevalence, many job seekers still are not entirely sure how to navigate the social media platform. We (OK, most of us — not this compassionate professional, of course) know it’s important for networking and career hunting, but how do we use it to our greatest advantage?

Forbes recently posted “22 LinkedIn Secrets LinkedIn Won’t Tell You” and I found it extremely helpful. Here are my top five tips from the list:

Be opportunistic. Join groups that will let you connect with people who are in your target audience but are not contacts. Being part of the group gives you permission to reach out to them and invite them to join your network. You don’t need to upgrade to Premium to do so.

Be redundant. Know the top five strengths for which you want to be recognized and use them in your profile – repeatedly. If your top skill is project management, describe your project management proficiency in your summary as well as in multiple experience descriptions. This will help the right audience find you.

Be ungrateful. Ask your contacts to endorse you for only your top skills. Having the highest number of endorsements for your signature strengths will influence those who are looking at your profile. Have the courage to delete or reject the endorsements that aren’t central to how you want to be known.

Be promiscuous. Ignore LinkedIn’s advice to only accept connection requests from people you know. That helps sell Premium, but it doesn’t help you get found. LinkedIn’s search algorithm favors those who are in your network. That means when people are looking for what you have to offer, the results of their searches are displayed with 1st level connections first, then 2nd level connections and so on.

Be personal.  Your profile is not a resume or CV. Write as if you are having a conversation with someone. Inject your personality. Let people know your values and passions. In your summary, discuss what you do outside of work. You want people to want to know you.

Great tips! Thanks, Forbes!

PS – Thanks for the post idea, Ashley Powell!

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post How to Link In appeared first on Law Street.

“Your invite to connect is inappropriate, beneficial only to you, and tacky. Wow, I cannot wait to let every 26-year-old jobseeker mine my top-tier marketing connections to help them land a job. I love the sense of entitlement in your generation. You’re welcome for your humility lesson for the year. Don’t ever reach out to senior practitioners again and assume their carefully curated list of connections is available to you, just because you want to build your network.”

Yikes. Are you blushing with empathetic embarrassment after reading that? Because I am. Twenty-six-year-old Diana Mekota sent the LinkedIn request heard ’round the world to Kelly Blazek, Cleveland’s “Communicator of the Year.” Blazek responded to the request by berating Mekota with the above along with the fact that she felt  Mekota’s request for connection was self-serving and only for networking. But guess what? That is what LinkedIn is for. What makes it even worse is that Blazek actually prides herself on being a source for young job seekers. This is exactly how young people network.

Blazek was on the receiving end of terrible public backlash when the message went viral and she has since apologized. But what do we learn from this? Besides the fact that some people are bullies. Our generations need to find some commonality, some mutual understanding of our differences.

Entitlement of millennials — business people in older generations actually conduct conferences on how to deal with it (us). Millennials are cutthroat, fiercely motivated, tech savvy, and kind of annoying. We are entrepreneurial and start up new ventures much more frequently than those before us. We don’t have the same boundaries as the generations before us because we were born into the social media world of instant communication and technological gratification. We email instead of call, and text instead of email. Some of us don’t know how to say “thank you” or how to follow up on a job interview appropriately. We were raised to think that the world can be ours, that it is owned instead of earned, and that it should be easily achieved.

The thing is though, the economy hasn’t done so well for us. The job search is harder than ever. Technology has its downsides — it takes forever for an automated system to sift through resumes. Competition is tougher than ever because we’re all fighting against other millennials who have similar qualifications. It’s rough out there.

But is it all our fault? Are we the only ones who need to adjust and accommodate? Yes, millennials are entitled, but we’re also the future. We also have the drive, gumption, and creativity to drive business and to really be an asset to a company if given the chance. The net-net is: don’t judge on either side. We can learn from each other. Because, if businesses are going to succeed, we’re going to have to.

If you’re thinking about starting a business or launching into any entrepreneurial venture, it is of utmost importance that you bridge the gap. If you’re older and starting a business, you’ll most likely hire a millennial at some point. If you’re younger, you’ll probably have someone as a client who would prefer an email to a text. Try to see from the other side, use your instincts, and avoid judging someone who might not have come of age in the same professional climate that you did.

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post Entitled Millennials or Entrepreneurial Generation Set on Success? appeared first on Law Street.

A few months ago, I wrote a post entitled Is LinkedIn the New Myspace? It seems that social media is making yet another transformation as far as job hunting goes as Facebook is becoming the dark horse of the job hunting competition. Forbes recently examined a Jobvite survey on the subject and the results were surprising — to me, at least. I consider Facebook’s appeal to be limited to seeing a whole bunch of baby/puppy/apartment/party pictures posted by people I went to high school with. Oh, and to remind me of birthdays. I really hadn’t considered it to be a spot for the job seeker.

Times are changing. According to the survey, more people actually use Facebook for their job-seeking needs than they do LinkedIn. Why? Because it is all about networking. LinkedIn is great for that as well, but it’s not really as easy. On LinkedIn, you can’t just connect with anyone. Some profiles require that you have a premium account to send a message, follow up, make an inquiry, etc. Facebook was built on networking — you can easily search for the people behind the institution and see if you have any mutual acquaintances. There might be something to it.

Here are a few of the suggestions that Forbes gives to better use the original social network to take the next step in your career:

1. Fill out your career history section. Not a lot of people do this on Facebook — at least not beyond their current job. But taking the time to add where you’ve been can lead to the next place you’ll end up.

2. Categorize your contacts. You know that section of Facebook where you can add how you know each friend? College, an old company, an internship? You should do that. It helps group your network and would make it easier to target your connections and your work updates.

3. Pay attention to professional updates. Believe it or not, amidst all of the pictures of pets and families and vacations, people actually post valuable career tips on Facebook. Pay attention to those posts, comment on them, share them.

The takeaway? Your online presence matters, and as social media increasingly becomes the standard for networking interaction it becomes more and more important to keep that in mind. You don’t want your online identity to hinder your hunt. Especially when the competition is using theirs to get ahead.

Happy hunting!

xo

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post Is Facebook the New LinkedIn? appeared first on Law Street.

In recent years, social media has become intrinsically linked with daily life. From dining to retail to business to politics, almost every public figure or company uses some sort of social media. Whether it’s Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Youtube, or one of the many other options, social media isn’t just for individuals anymore, it’s for businesses, too. It’s estimated that 73 percent of Americans who regularly use the internet are involved in social media and networking in some capacity.

Working in social media is actually a viable and legitimate job for many people right now. An AOL jobs post from January 2014 projects that this year a Social Media Strategist will make about $61,000, require a bachelor’s degree, and points out that “the more social media followers a company has, the more their products and services are recognized.”

So, how are law firms doing with this? Well, a firm called Good2bSocial tried to answer that question this winter. Good2bSocial is a consulting firm that helps other companies expand their social marketing, particularly in the legal field. They worked together with AboveTheLaw to attempt to figure out how exactly the legal industry, particularly leaders in the industry, are doing with social media. The results were that big law firms are doing a pretty miserable job with it.

A white paper called “The Social Law Firm” by Good2bSocial was released last December, and followup articles have been released since then. The white paper itself requires a (free) subscription to Good2bSocial’s site, but if you don’t feel like reading the entire thing, I’ve summed up some important points below.

The study essentially analyzed the social media practices of the Am Law 50. It was conducted through surveys and questionnaires and an analysis of existing social media sites for each of the firms.

The study pretty much finds that while many law firms use social media, and use it extensively, they don’t use it in the most efficient or creative ways. The use of social media is described as a “token effort,” because law firms create social media sites to say that they have them, and so that they’re searchable, but don’t take advantage of the potential that those sites offer. Good2bSocial points out that social media takes real strategy separate from basic marketing. While law firms are creating substantive and interesting content, they are not using social media to promote such content as much as they could be.

Law firms have gotten that social media is important, it just really seems like they haven’t begun to understand how it works. The report states that “firms continue to view social media as nothing more than a distribution channel for firm news and press releases. This alone explains why firms achieve such low levels of engagement.” Uploading a pdf link to twitter isn’t engaging, it isn’t going to foster discussion, and it isn’t going to attract more followers.

Another mistake made by law firms, according to this study, is that they don’t have platforms in place to allow for coordination and collaboration within the firm, or in-house blogs. All of these things are not only attractive concepts for clients or potential employees, but also are helpful and engaging for current employees. The study does predict that this will all change, but that change is slow going and many firms are just beginning to scratch the surface of their social media potential.

The study does note that smaller firms are doing a better job with social media, but overall the conclusion remains that the field of law in general is lacking in social media prowess.

This begs an important question, though. Should law firms even care about social media, especially big, established firms like the Am Law 50? Social media is so crucial for places like retail stores, restaurants, or other product-based businesses because these places can attract new customers through the web. Is the same true for big law firms? Will interesting social media make clients more likely to visit that firm?

Well to be honest, I don’t know. Part of me wants to say absolutely not, these law firms have their niches and their reputations on which to rely. Engaging social media probably won’t have as large of an effect on their track record, as say, a good track record. On the other hand, though, social media can’t hurt. It could attract employees who find the idea of a collaborative social media experience within in the firm interesting. And as the business world changes, clients shopping around for new law firms may be interesting in finding lawyers who are as technologically savvy as they are.

The fact that smaller law firms are doing better with social media is very interesting. It’s unsurprising, given that I would assume smaller firms are more likely to try to actively attract new business, and are more willing to experiment with different outreach techniques.

In conclusion, Good2bSocial’s rundown was very interesting, but I don’t think social media will end up meaning that much for the Am Law 50 that were analyzed. The different nature of consumers of law services rather than other products make social media less of a necessity and more of a bonus. That being said, there’s much more to be gained by instituting a robust social media strategy than to be lost, and really, big law firms should consider getting on the bandwagon.

[Good2bSocial]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jason Howle via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law Firms Are Bad at Social Media, But Does it Matter? appeared first on Law Street.

Ok, so, let’s talk about social media use while job hunting. Social media isn’t going anywhere, and neither is your need for employment. So, let’s find a way to make them fit together, shall we?

1. Don’t be creepy on LinkedIn. Having a current LinkedIn profile is almost a given in the job market. Everyone has one. And most employers check it. Let’s get one thing straight: LinkedIn is not for making friends, it’s for finding a job, researching a company, and reading articles about those two things. It is for networking. Think someone is cute? Check to see if they have a MySpace (and if they do and it’s active, reconsider). Leave LinkedIn to the searcher and the employer. Take the social out of this network. Keep your photo and content strictly professional.

2. Keep it clean, folks. Guess what? Future employers probably google you. Do you want them to see that photo of you on the mechanical bull circa spring break ’09? No, you don’t. We’ve had Facebook long enough to know this, people.

3. Keep your current work experiences to yourself. Did you fake sick? Keep it off your page. Do you hate your boss? You don’t want your new boss thinking you’re a boss-basher. Just keep that stuff to yourself. You also might want to keep your job hunting on the DL if your employer is still in the dark. You’re always just one mutual friend away from an awkward situation.

4. Make your wall private. “You are what you post” is the new “you are what you eat.” Keep your posts, shares, and friends’ comments private.  Do you want to look like a hot mess? Of course not. At least not in front of your prospective employers.

Happy hunting!

xo The Capitalista

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post Is LinkedIn the New MySpace? appeared first on Law Street.

Now that you’ve come of with a story, done the illustrations, and become an expert at protecting your comics, the hard part is over,  right? Well, actually getting your work published often takes even more effort. Many comic book creators find that they are out of their element when it comes to meeting and negotiating with publishers (especially some of the bigger names as seen below). Well, the panelists at Comic Con have some tips and tricks to help get you started.

Meeting and Negotiating with Publishers

Alan Robert and David Gallaher took the lead on this topic, which was only fair since they have first-hand experience of what it is like meeting and negotiating with publishers as comic book creators.

First off, it’s essential to understand the three types of comic ownership:

1. Publisher Owned – Such as Marvel or DC Comics
2. Creator Owned – You own and distribute yourself
3. Creator Driven – You and the Publisher share ownership

The type of ownership you have is determined by the publishing deal you develop, including licensing and which specific rights you wish to retain, and can differ depending on the type of media used (such as comics versus television or movies). The publishing deal will also determine the expected delivery date and expected deliverables (cover art, first draft, final draft, etc.). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the deal will hammer out the copyright ownership  and the royalty rates in each media form.

Generally, in a royalty pool, a comic’s royalties are shared as follows:

• 35% – Plotters/Scriptwriters
• 35% – Artists/Pencillers
• 15% – Colorists
• 15% – Inkers

However, in creator-driven projects, the royalties are paid to the creators and collaborators only after the publishing company recoups all the money it expended for the project. These recoupable expenses may include:

• Production, printing and advertising
• Agency fees
• Taxes and bad debts
• Returns for credit
• Lawyer fees (Yes, even lawyer fees for negotiating the publishing deal)

One of the biggest points the panelists emphasized is the need for promotion. Comic book entrepreneur Alan Robert shared with the audience his tips and tricks to getting your work published and highlighted three aspects of promotion:

Creating the Pitch – The pitch is a crucial part of any campaign. According to Mr. Robert, your pitch should include a logline, which lays out the summary of and realistic aspirations for your concept.

Using Social Media – Mr. Roberts testified to the use of social media to build relationships from first-hand experience. He received his first publishing deal through Twitter. This part of promotion includes following the leaders (people you like and admire), partnering with peers (building relationships with like-minded creators), and using marketing tips from companies like Issuu and Animoto. He also mentioned to get reviews of your work by hiring publicists and reaching out to journalists. Finally, he stressed the need to stay positive, expressing that this business requires persistence and thick skin.

Networking – Mr. Roberts compared this to “Working the Long Con” (as in Comic Con). Comic book creators look at Comic Con as a business convention above all else. The goal is to identify, contact, and meet and greet publishers who attend the convention. He stressed the importance of setting up meetings with publishers before the show even begins.

Preparing for Your Meetings – Once you’ve scored your big meeting you still need to do your homework.

• Have an agenda and move forward with it – Know what you are going to speak about with the publishers and execute that agenda the best you can.
• Dress nicely – This is a job interview. Remember, Comic Con is a business convention and you are a comic book creator.
• Bring business cards – This makes you look professional.
• Only bring published material – Mr. Roberts emphasized that is his most important tip. Don’t bring any ideas, spec scripts, or anything similar to meetings with these publishers. If you have previously published something then that is what you should show them.
• Follow up in a timely fashion – You want to remind the publishers of who you are, what you discussed, and maintain contact with them.

Not everyone may be able to get their first publishing deal via Twitter like Alan Robert, but some publishers accept online submissions of material. Marvel Comics does not accept any online submissions, however, its counterpart, DC Comics, accepts submissions via its Entertainment Talent Search program. IDW Publishing accepts online submissions from artists and colorists only. Dark Horse Comics accepts all types of online submissions.

Finally, Mr. Roberts gave us his tips and tricks specifically for working with publishers:

1. Hit you deadlines – Don’t bite off more than you can chew.
2. Plan ahead – Have solicitation materials ready early.
3. Be flexible – Publishers may have marketing ideas about your project to attract wider audiences.
4. Expectations – Know that publishers have priorities other than just you.
5. Plan your next idea – Stay in the game. Continue creating comic books and staying involved in the industry.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [numb – Hey Man Nice Shot via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC Comic Con: You’ve Protected it, Now it’s Time to Publish appeared first on Law Street.